(Super. Ct. No. 10F01242)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , P. 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Carlos Gonzalez pleaded no contest to felony evasion of a pursuing police officer and misdemeanor driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code, §§ 2800.2, subd. (a), 14601.2, subd. (a)), and admitted he had a prior strike conviction and had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12).*fn1 In accordance with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to five years in state prison. On appeal, he contends the trial court (1) coerced his plea and (2) violated section 1204.5 by reviewing, prior to defendant's change of plea, the preliminary hearing transcripts and the People's motion in limine, which contained information regarding his prior criminal history. We affirm.
On February 21, 2010, Sacramento police officers saw a car speeding and noticed it did not have license plates. The officers initiated a traffic stop, but instead of stopping, the driver of the car (later identified as defendant) continued traveling at a high rate of speed and ran several stop signs. The car eventually stopped on a residential lawn, and defendant fled on foot until he was apprehended by the officers.
A criminal complaint was filed on February 23, 2010. Public Defender Graves represented defendant from arraignment through March 25, 2010, when defendant entered not guilty pleas and denials and the preliminary hearing was set. During this time, defendant rejected a settlement offer from the prosecution for a 32-month prison term. Public Defender Hallinan represented defendant thereafter.
The preliminary hearing was held on April 7, 2010. Defendant was held to answer. On June 15, 2010, defendant was granted in propria persona (pro. per.) status.
The information was amended on June 18, 2010, alleging: count one, felony evasion of a pursuing police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)); count two, unlawful felony possession of a dagger or dirk (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)); count three, misdemeanor driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)); a prior strike conviction for causing corporal injury to a spouse with great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 12022.7); and a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant waived formal arraignment, entered not guilty pleas to the charges, and denied the special allegations. Thereafter, on August 6, 2010, the trial court dismissed count two upon the prosecutor's motion.
On October 15, 2010, defendant requested that the trial court revoke his in pro. per. status and reappoint counsel. The trial court reappointed the public defender's office and Attorney Hallinan resumed representation of defendant. A few days later, defendant appeared and said he wanted to "continue" his in pro. per. status. The trial court denied the request, stating it would not "play that game anymore."
On December 3, 2010, after Attorney Hallinan requested the court declare doubt as to defendant's competence, criminal proceedings were suspended and an evaluation ordered. Defendant was found competent on February 8, 2011, and criminal proceedings were reinstated.
On February 10, 2011, defendant requested in pro. per. status because Attorney Hallinan was representing him again. After further inquiry regarding defendant's desires, the trial court put the matter over for a week to allow defendant time to consider whether he wished to bring a Faretta motion to proceed in pro. per. or a Marsden motion.*fn2
On February 25, 2011, the trial court granted defendant's request for a Marsden hearing. During the hearing, defendant complained, inter alia, that the prosecution's offer had gone from 32 months (before the preliminary hearing) to five years. He also wanted Attorney Hallinan to bring a pretrial Romero motion to dismiss the strike conviction.*fn3 Defendant's Marsden motion was denied.
After defendant's Marsden motion was denied, the matter was put over for a few days for defendant to consider whether he wanted to proceed in pro. per. again. Defendant was warned that any Faretta motion should be made within the week, ...