P. v. Strombertg
Filed 6/29/06 P. v. Strombertg CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SPENCER WADE STROMBERG, Defendant and Appellant. | A107450 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. H34379) |
| In re SPENCER WADE STROMBERG on Habeas Corpus. | A112282 |
A jury convicted defendant Spencer Wade Stromberg of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). Because that offense was defendant's third strike, the trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life. With enhancements for prior convictions under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1), defendant's total sentence is 35 years to life.
On appeal and in an accompanying habeas corpus petition, defendant contends in various ways that his trial counsel, David Byron, was ineffective. On appeal, defendant challenges several rulings of the trial court, including denial of Marsden motions for the replacement of appointed counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden)), and a motion for self-representation under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). Defendant contends he was improperly impeached with prior felony convictions. Finally, defendant contends the trial court erred by refusing to consider his pro. per. motion for a new trial based on ineffective trial counsel. (People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572 (Fosselman).)
We disagree with defendant's contentions, affirm the conviction and sentence, and deny the habeas petition.
I. FACTS
Under applicable standards of appellate review, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment of conviction and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact which the jury could reasonably find from the evidence. (People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303; People v. Neufer (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 244, 247.)
The People's Case
Ann and Larry Gift lived at 3505 Cade Drive in Fremont. On June 13, 2002, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Ann was getting ready for work when she looked out her front window and saw â€
