Filed 6/1/06 P. v. Montanez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD MONTANEZ, JR., Defendant and Appellant. |
F047718
(Super. Ct. No. F03907775-1)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Lawrence Jones, Alan M. Simpson and Franklin P. Jones, Judges.*
John F. Schuck, 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, Charles A. French and Angelo S. Edralin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Defendant Richard Montanez, Jr., was convicted of first degree residential burglary, which was his third strike. He appeals the conviction claiming (1) his constitutional right to represent himself at trial was violated, (2) the superior court abused its discretion in denying his motions to replace his court-appointed attorney, and (3) the superior court improperly instructed the jury using CALJIC No. 2.15, which addresses an inference of guilt drawn from (a) the possession of recently stolen property and (b) slight corroborating evidence. We conclude (1) defendant's invocation of his right to represent himself was abandoned and the superior court did not err by not considering that request when it heard his motion for a new appointed attorney; (2) the superior court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motions to replace the deputy public defender appointed to represent him; and (3) the use of CALJIC No. 2.15 did not violate defendant's constitutional rights. Accordingly, judgment is affirmed.
FACTS
On November 20, 2003, defendant stole a gas-powered hedge trimmer and a gas-powered weed eater from a garage and rode away on a red mountain bike. The owners of the tools saw defendant on the bicycle with their equipment. They followed defendant in their vehicle and contacted the police. Defendant eventually was detained by the police. The owners of the hedge trimmer and weed eater drove to the location and identified him.
The first amended information charged defendant with first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), two â€
