Filed 2/26/18 P. v. Watson CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICHARD ALLEN WATSON,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068610

(Super.Ct.No. SWF1500679)

O P I N I O N


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Elaine M. Kiefer, Judge. Affirmed.
Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendant and appellant, Richard Allen Watson, of two counts of criminal threats (counts 1-2; Pen. Code, § 422) and one count of stalking (count 3; § 646.9, subd. (a)). The court thereafter found true allegations defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to imprisonment for 11 years four months.
After defendant’s counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and identifying five potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred in denying defendant’s Faretta motion; (2) whether the court erred in denying defendant’s Marsden motion; (3) whether the court erred in allowing the People to introduce evidence of defendant’s prior domestic violence conviction pursuant to Evidence Code section 1109, subdivision (a); (4) whether sufficient evidence supported the element of the criminal threat offenses that the victim(s) suffered from sustained fear; and (5) whether defense counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to request a voir dire examination of Victim 1 to determine whether her memory of the events to which she testified were properly refreshed by the documents presented to her or whether the documents themselves should have been admitted into evidence. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Victim 1 testified she dated defendant from 2004 through 2008; they had a child together in 2008. The last time she saw him was sometime between 2011 and 2012; however, they would call each other occasionally. Sometimes the calls would be friendly; sometimes they would get into arguments. Victim 1 had sole custody of their son; defendant would want to come out to visit with their son; she was fine with him visiting, but he would want to spend the night at her home, which she was against; she told him he could stay in a hotel. Defendant would also ask her to drive their son to Los Angeles to visit him, which she would not do. This would upset him.
In 2015, defendant began calling her places of employment. The calls “were very repetitive, over and over.” He would call over 20 times in a row. At her earlier places of employment, staff would simply hang up when defendant would call until he got tired of calling.
At her latter place of employment, a casino with a large security department, they would escort her back and forth from her car to her work after they informed her a man had called to say he “had a gun and . . . would come in and blow [her] brains out and anyone who tried to stop [him].” The calls scared and embarrassed her. A reservation attendant at the casino testified a man had called asking to speak with Victim 1; the man then said to “‘[l]et her know I’m going to fucking kill her.’”
Victim 1 had to change her cell phone number several times because defendant would make harassing calls. Defendant would also call her parents’ home phone number and her mother’s cell phone.
Victim 1 filed a request for a restraining order on February 26, 2015, on behalf of herself, her mother, and her children because defendant was making harassing phone calls to her job and threatening the lives of her, her mother, and her children. She filed another request for a restraining order on May 27, 2015, because she failed to attend the date for the hearing on the previous request; the latter request was granted.
On July 21, 2015, police came to Victim 1’s parents’ house due in part to the threatening, harassing calls defendant was making to Victim 1. While the police officer was there, defendant called either her parents’ home phone or her mother’s cell phone; Victim 1 answered; she put it on speaker phone; defendant was cursing, yelling, and making threats. Defendant twice said, “‘I’m gonna kill you.’” When Victim 2, Victim 1’s father, picked up the phone, defendant said three times, “‘I’m gonna kill your daughter.’”
Defendant also sent text messages to Victim 1’s mother’s cell phone threatening the victim. He wrote: “‘I’m going to make you pay. Remember, I already gave you your address to where you live. I have your Social Security number and full name. You’ll never be able to hide.’” Victim 1 was surprised that defendant knew where she lived because she never told him her address. The threats made her feel upset and afraid for her children because she thought he was capable of doing what he threatened.
Victim 2 testified that in early August 2015, defendant called and told him he was “gonna kill your daughter, man.’” Defendant threatened to burn down Victim 2’s home with all his family in it. Victim 2 was concerned for his family’s safety.
In 2007, defendant threatened Victim 1; he hit her in the face, put his hands around her neck, and choked her; she ran to the neighbor’s home to call the police. On November 14, 2007, she came to her parents’ house; defendant came out from hiding and threatened to kill her and her family. On December 10, 2007, defendant threatened her life. Between 2007 and 2008, she requested restraining orders against defendant because she was receiving threatening phone calls from him.
The parties stipulated that defendant pled guilty to domestic violence on July 21, 2008, for an incident that occurred on September 28, 2007. Defendant also pled guilty to criminal threats on July 28, 2008, for an incident that occurred on December 10, 2007.
On the day scheduled for trial, defendant moved to represent himself. Defendant said he would not be ready to proceed with picking a jury and, if the motion was granted, he would be requesting a continuance. The court denied the request based on defendant’s request for a continuance. Defense counsel moved to exclude evidence of incidents between defendant and Victim 1 which occurred in 2007 and 2012; the court denied the motion. The next day, defendant requested the appointment of new counsel. The court held a Marsden hearing, after which it denied defendant’s request.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER
Acting P. J.

We concur:

MILLER
J.

SLOUGH
J.