P. v. Meza
Filed 2/10/06 P. v. Meza CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PEDRO MEZA, Defendant and Appellant. | B178419 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA045185) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Kathryne Stoltz and Martin Herscovitz, Judges. Affirmed.
Carlo Andreani, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Erin M. Pitman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________
Pedro Mesa, also known as Pedro Meza, Jose Perez Chavez, Jose Perez Chevez and Jesse Varela, appeals from a judgment entered upon his conviction by jury of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)).[1] The trial court found to be true the allegations that appellant had suffered three prior felony convictions within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and a serious felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). It sentenced appellant to an aggregate state prison term of 30 years to life. Appellant contends that the trial court (1) abused its discretion and violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying his Marsden[2] motions, (2) violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by erroneously denying him self-representation, (3) abused its discretion and violated his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by subjecting him to seat belt restraint, (4) erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offense of simple assault, and (5) erred in denying his request for an instruction on misdemeanor brandishing a weapon under section 417. He also contends that the cumulative effect of these errors violated his right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On February 12, 2004, at approximately 4:30 p.m., Martir Ortiz was working on a construction site located on Ventura Boulevard, near Louise Avenue. He testified that he was standing on the sidewalk with his hand on a parking meter. Appellant walked by and attempted to hit Ortiz's hand with his hand. Ortiz pulled his hand away, and appellant hit the meter. Appellant asked why Ortiz was standing around and not working, and told him that California law required him to be working. Ortiz told appellant that he did not know him, not to bother him, and asked appellant to leave. Appellant appeared annoyed and under the influence of alcohol or some other substance and told Ortiz that he was a â€