People v. Hurst CA4/1

Filed 3/13/24 P. v. Hurst CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081990

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD287570)

PATRICK DORIEN HURST,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Affirmed. Richard J. Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. The People in a second amended information charged Patrick Dorien

Hurst with robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211; count 1) and alleged that under the “Three Strikes” law he had suffered a serious felony prior (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668, 1192.7, subd. (c)) and two strike priors (§§ 211, 667, subds. (b)-(i),

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

668, 1170.12). The People also alleged as aggravating circumstances that Hurst had served a prior prison term (California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3)) and his performance was unsatisfactory while on probation or parole (California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(5)). The jury convicted Hurst of robbery, and found true the allegations under the Three Strikes law as well as the aggravating circumstances. The court sentenced Hurst to the upper term of five years on count 1, struck the two strike priors under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and struck the serious felony prior because Hurst committed it as a juvenile. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has been unable to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Hurst the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He responded with a one-paragraph note that does not include any substantive legal argument: “My name is Patrick Dorian Hurst. The attorney that represented me on [a]ppeal is Richard Jay Moller. Right now I am claiming inaffective [sic] assistance of counsel due to him currently being on vacation in Hawaii, and rushing through my case and filing a Wende brief. I recently had a hip replacement surgery on 10/24/23. I have issues that need to be addressed.” FACTUAL BACKGROUND At one point, the court granted Hurst’s motion to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). It later granted his motion seeking appointment of counsel. On August 29, 2022, the day before trial began, the court granted Hurst’s renewed request to represent himself.