P. v. Perrot
Filed 5/17/06 P. v. Perrot CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHAWN LEE PERROT, Defendant and Appellant. | A107378 (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR025068) |
Defendant was found guilty by jury trial of the following charges: two counts of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)--counts one and two),[1] three counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child of 14 or 15 years of age (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)--counts four, five, and eight), five counts of unlawful sexual intercourse (statutory rape) (§ 261.5, subds. (c) & (d)--counts seven, ten, eleven, twelve, and thirteen), one count of distribution of lewd material to a minor (§ 288.2, subd. (a)--count fourteen), and one count of committing a forcible lewd act (oral copulation) on a child (§ 288a, subd. (b)(1)--count fifteen). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel and failing to grant a continuance of trial after the prosecution amended the information, and that it was error to admit certain evidence. We disagree and affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
Because defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him, we need not set forth a detailed discussion of the evidence at trial. Defendant's convictions stem from a series of sexual acts with two minor victims, B.H. and J.J. B.H. was 16 at the time the charged offenses took place; J.J. was 14.
B.H. met defendant while attending drag races in the summer of 2002. She had consensual sexual intercourse with him on several occasions in the weeks that followed. B.H. believed that defendant was 26 at the time. Defendant also showed B.H. child pornography on his computer.
J.J. also met defendant in the summer of 2002 at street races. At some point while he and B.H. were having intercourse, defendant asked her whether she could introduce him to younger girls. B.H. ignored defendant's request, but he raised it again later and also asked whether B.H. had sexual interest in younger girls. He asked B.H. whether she could arrange a time when he could be with J.J.
J.J. had sexual intercourse with defendant three times. On the first occasion, J.J. was asleep on the floor in her bedroom, and defendant woke her up and forced her to have sex with him. On the second occasion, defendant brought J.J. and B.H. to his trailer in Loleta, and defendant had sexual intercourse with J.J. B.H. testified that J.J. did not offer any physical resistance on that occasion. On the third occasion, defendant forced J.J. to have sex with him in the bedroom of his trailer while J.J.'s 11-year-old cousin was in the next room. Defendant stated that he would go after J.J.'s cousin if J.J. did not have sex with him. The cousin testified that she heard J.J. screaming in the bedroom when she was with defendant, and the cousin also heard the sound of slapping or hitting.
B.H. eventually reported defendant's actions to police to prevent him from being physically harmed by her friends. The prosecution filed a complaint on October 17, 2002, and defendant pleaded not guilty to all charges.
After four different attorneys were appointed to represent defendant and then relieved because of conflicts, the trial court granted defendant's request to represent himself (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 835 (Faretta)) on April 11, 2003.
Following a preliminary hearing on May 1, 2003, the trial court found that there was sufficient evidence to hold defendant to answer on all but three of the charged offenses. The prosecution filed an information on May 14, 2003, that contained the following charges: two counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), four counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child of 14 or 15 years of age (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)), two counts of distribution of lewd material to a minor (§ 288.2, subd. (a)), four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse (§ 261.5, subd. (c)), and one count of committing a forcible lewd act (oral copulation) on a child (§ 288a, subd. (b)(1)).
A jury trial began in April 2004. After jury selection had begun, the prosecution filed a first amended information that referred to the victims by their first names instead of by fictitious names. No new counts were added, and defendant did not object to the amendment.
On April 27, 2004, about two weeks after the first witness testified, the district attorney filed a motion to file a second amended information. The prosecution sought, based on evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing and at trial, to add three additional counts and to conform the dates in the information to the evidence presented. As to the dates, the first amended information had alleged that the crimes took place beginning on or about August 15 until on or about September 8, 2002, with most of the crimes allegedly taking place on or about September 2, September 4, and September 8.[2] The second amended information expanded the applicable range of dates by about three weeks, alleging that all of the crimes took place on or about August 1 to September 17, 2002.
The trial court addressed the proposed amendment on May 10, 2004. Defendant objected to the expansion of the relevant time period, stating that it would â€
