P. v. Lancaster

Filed 6/2/06 P. v. Lancaster CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed.

Derek K. Kowata, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Kyle S. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________

Gary Lancaster appeals his conviction of second degree robbery, misdemeanor assault, and stalking. He claims the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to represent himself, and that the court should have instructed the jury to view evidence of admissions with caution. Finally, in order to preserve the issue, he claims that imposition of the upper term sentence was error under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Charletta Alford dated defendant for approximately one year. She broke off the relationship in April 2002. In the last months of the relationship, and for several months afterward, defendant made numerous unwanted telephone calls to Alford, sometimes while he waited outside her work or her home; defendant also was seen driving by Alford's daughter's school. Defendant followed Alford on several occasions when she was driving, â€