P. v. Crump

Filed 7/10/06 P. v. Crump CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. William T. Ivey, Judge. (Retired judge of the superior court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.)

Stanley J. Crump, in pro. per.; Paul Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Brian Alvarez and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

On June 4, 2004, Stanley Joseph Crump was found mentally incompetent to stand trial and ordered committed to the trial competency program at Atascadero State Hospital for not more than three years. (§§ 1026, subd. (b), 1368, 1370.^[1]) On June 14, 2004, he filed a notice of appeal from that order. On October 28, 2005, his appointed appellate attorney filed a brief summarizing the case, raising no issues, and requesting an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) On August 18, 2004, September 20, 2004, and January 5, 2006, Crump filed briefs that we deemed to be his supplemental Wende briefing. On February 17, 2006, the Attorney General filed a respondent's brief. On February 21, 2006, we granted Crump leave to file a reply to the respondent's brief within 20 days from that date. He filed no reply. On the basis of our consideration of the issues in his supplemental Wende briefing and our independent review of the record as his appellate attorney requested, we will affirm the order.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 29, 2004, the district attorney's office filed a complaint that charged Crump with nonconsensual use of personal identifying information of another person (§ 530.5), with theft by false pretenses (§ 532), and with burglary (§ 459) and that alleged one prison term prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and four strike priors (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)). At his arraignment on that day, he pled not guilty and denied the allegations.

At a hearing on February 9, 2004, Crump sought, and the court granted, permission to represent himself. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.) In a letter filed on March 8, 2004, he requested a continuance on the ground that a Social Security Administration (SSA) employee told him additional processing time was necessary before he could receive a document he intended to submit to the court showing he had neither access to nor knowledge of anyone else's personal identifying information when he applied for a duplicate Social Security card in 2003. On that day, in proceedings that were not reported, the court relieved him of his status in propria persona and appointed an attorney to represent him.

On March 15, 2004, Crump filed a petition in propria persona for a writ of habeas corpus requesting dismissal of the charges against him on the ground that jail staff had precluded him from preparing an adequate defense by interfering with his access to the law library and the telephone. On March 23, 2004, the court denied the petition.^[2]

In a letter filed on March 26, 2004, Crump requested dismissal of the charges against him on the basis of an SSA document he enclosed with his letter showing an application in the name of Stanley Crump for a duplicate Social Security card in 2003. Due to â€