(Super. Ct. No. CRF093531)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murray , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Roman Carrillo Ibanez represented himself and his jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit burglary (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1);*fn1 count 1), as well as resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and possession of burglary tools (§ 466; count 3). In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found that defendant had been convicted of a prior serious felony (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court granted a new trial as to the charge of possession of burglary tools and the prosecutor elected not to retry it. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for five years. The trial court also imposed a 60-day county jail sentence for the resisting arrest conviction, with credit for time served.
On appeal, represented by appellate counsel, defendant contends (1) the trial court committed reversible error when it granted his Faretta*fn2 motion because he was not mentally competent to defend himself, and (2) his speedy trial rights were violated because he was not brought to trial within 60 days of his arraignment. We affirm the judgment.
Defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error when it granted his Faretta motion to represent himself. Specifically, he contends (1) he was not competent to represent himself, and (2) the trial court misadvised him regarding the possible sentence he could receive. Neither point has merit.
The information was filed on October 19, 2009. On April 9, 2010, defendant's counsel declared a doubt as to defendant's competency (§ 1368) and criminal proceedings were suspended. Captane Thomson, M.D., was appointed to examine defendant. At a hearing on May 20, 2010, the matter was submitted on Dr. Thomson's report and the trial court found that defendant was competent to stand trial.
Shortly after the court announced its competency finding, defendant indicated to his counsel that he would like to represent himself. Defendant completed a waiver of counsel form. The trial court admonished him at length regarding self-representation, and defendant indicated he understood each admonition. In the process of providing the admonition, the court told defendant that "the charges, Penal Code violation [section] 182(a)(1), prior strike allegation, the punishments possible are up to 12 months - range from 12 months [in] county jail or six years in state prison plus a substantial fine." As with the other admonitions, the court asked whether defendant understood, and he said "Yes." Defendant confirmed his desire to represent himself and the trial court granted defendant's request.
After the prosecution rested its case-in-chief, the prosecutor told the court she had had a conversation with attorney Lawrence Cobb.*fn4 The prosecutor informed the court that Cobb told her he had been contacted by defendant's family and wanted to pass along some information regarding defendant that he had obtained from the family. Cobb told the prosecutor that defendant suffered from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and the condition "may affect [defendant's] ability to perform as his own counsel." The trial court responded to this information as follows:
"When I reviewed the file in this case, I came across a report prepared by Dr. Captane Thomson, a respected psychiatrist who often works with the Court to determine whether criminal defendants are legally competent to stand trial. Dr. Thomson had interviewed [defendant] in April of this year, April 12th to be exact. The specific question posed to Dr. Thomson is whether [defendant] understood the charges against him, and, secondarily, whether he was capable of working with an attorney to present his own defense. [¶] Dr. Thomson concluded that the defendant very much understood and appreciated the charges he was facing, and that he could work with an attorney. [¶] In the process of that interview, Dr. Thomson also concluded that in all likelihood, [defendant] suffered from ADHD, Attention Deficit Disorder is what I call it. He wanted to point that out to the Court. [¶] Ultimately, Dr. Thomson said that there was no reason the trial couldn't proceed because referencing the criteria which the Court must use to determine whether criminal proceedings should be suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1368, he said that the defendant was certainly competent. [¶] Since I have interacted with [defendant], I would confirm that same observation. Not that I know what ADHD looks like, but in terms of [defendant's] competence, I find that he certainly understands the nature of the charges and ...