People v. Jensen CA3

Filed 1/11/24 P. v. Jensen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097822

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE006188)

v.

KEITH HUGH JENSEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Keith Hugh Jensen was representing himself and pled no contest to the unlawful driving of a vehicle. After that plea but before his sentencing, defendant filed over a dozen motions, including motions to dismiss the case, motions for discovery, motions to withdraw his plea, and other pleadings seeking to disqualify several judges involved in the case. In these motions and at hearings, defendant repeatedly accused government officials, including the judges presiding over his case, of misconduct, corruption, and conspiring against him. The court ultimately found defendant’s motions were frivolous and terminated defendant’s self-representation. Defendant appeals from

1

the resulting judgment and argues the court erred in revoking his self-represented status. We affirm because the trial court acted within its discretion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2022, the trial court relieved defendant’s court-appointed public defender due to a conflict of interest and granted defendant’s motion to represent himself. Two weeks later, defendant filed a peremptory challenge against the trial judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, and the case was reassigned to Judge McCormick. Defendant then pled no contest to unlawful driving of a vehicle and admitted a prior strike conviction. The negotiated disposition provided for 32 months’ imprisonment. As part of the plea colloquy, defendant avowed that he was entering his plea freely and voluntarily. The trial court scheduled a sentencing hearing for August 2022. In the months following his plea hearing, defendant filed numerous pleadings, including: (1) a declaration in support of a motion pursuant to People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247; (2) a motion for release on his own recognizance; (3) a motion to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor; (4) a motion to withdraw his no contest plea; (5) a motion to deem the matter an unusual case for the purposes of granting probation; (6) a motion challenging the restitution order; (7) a motion for pretrial discovery; (8) an addendum to the motion to withdraw his no contest plea; (9) a motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution; (10) an offer of proof of third party culpability; (11) a motion to dismiss based on judicial and prosecutorial misconduct; (12) an addendum to the motion to dismiss based on governmental misconduct; (13) a motion to recuse Judge McCormick; (14) a “statement” to his motion to dismiss based on governmental misconduct; (15) a motion to disqualify Judge McCormick pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1; (16) a further motion for discovery; and (17) a request for permission to use an electronic recorder based on defendant’s claim that the court reporter was improperly transcribing the proceedings.