(Super. Ct. No. 10F01035)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
A jury convicted defendant Byron Dwayne Jackson of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), and found true the allegations that he had previously been convicted of corporal injury on a cohabitant (id. § 273.5, subds. (a) & (e)(1)) and a serious felony (id. §§ 211 [robbery], 1192.7, subd. (c)(19)). The trial court sentenced defendant to eight years in state prison.
Defendant presents two arguments on appeal. First, he makes a three-prong challenge on the admission of prior domestic violence evidence under Evidence Code section 1109*fn1 , by attacking the evidence as violative of due process, equal protection, and the prohibition on unduly inflammatory evidence in section 352. Second, defendant argues that he should not have been allowed to represent himself at trial because the United States Supreme Court wrongly decided Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562] (Faretta).
With regard to the due process challenge to section 1109, we reject defendant's argument. As defendant acknowledges, this court has previously rejected an identical due process challenge to section 1109. Because defendant did not object to the prior domestic violence evidence on equal protection and section 352 grounds, these two arguments are forfeited. Finally, defendant's challenge to the United State Supreme Court's decision in Faretta is rejected because we are bound to follow this decision. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Prior to trial, defendant unsuccessfully moved for substitution of his appointed attorney. A week later, the court granted defendant's motion to represent himself. Defendant executed an acknowledgment of "Faretta warnings" and was given county jail inmate pro per status and privileges.
Three months later, a jury trial commenced. The evidence at trial showed the following:
On January 5, 2010, Haunahni, the victim, was engaged to be married to defendant. They lived together in an apartment along with Haunahni's son. When Haunahni came home from work that evening, defendant asked her about the medication that she had taken away from him earlier that day. She thought defendant "was getting too dependent upon it" and refused to hand it over. Defendant dumped her purse and looked for his medication.
Defendant sat down to watch television. Haunahni began tidying up the apartment, making dinner, and packing for an impending move. Defendant complained that she was making too much noise for him to hear the television. Irritated by the complaint, Haunahni threw a shoe and make-up bag at defendant. She did not intend to hurt him. Instead, "[i]t was just like shut-the-hell-up type of throw."
Defendant got up and went over to Haunahni They started to argue. Defendant grabbed her hair and began to strangle her. He let go of her neck when her son came out of his bedroom. Defendant told her to sit down, but she stood on a loveseat instead. Defendant hit Haunahni in the mouth. He grabbed her hair and repeatedly hit her head against the wall. Defendant then grabbed a couch pillow and began to smother her. When Haunahni said she wanted to go check on her son, defendant hit her in the mouth four times. Defendant told her, "bitch you make me sick and you talk too much." Haunahni broke free and ran toward her son's ...