Filed 12/7/05

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION FIVE

 

 

 

THE PEOPLE,   Plaintiff and Respondent,   v.   CARY RINGO,   Defendant and Appellant.

B177196   (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA250914)

 

 

 

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Kellogg, Judge. 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Katz and Robert C. Schneider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

 

________________________________

The trial court convicted defendant and appellant Cary Ringo of dissuading a witness by force or threat (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1)),^[1] felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and first degree residential burglary (§ 459).^[2] The trial court found that defendant had suffered two prior strike convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a). The trial court also found defendant had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Pursuant to an agreement to limit punishment to 18 years in prison if defendant agreed to a court trial, defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 16 years, calculated by doubling the sentences for the substantive offenses under the Three Strikes Law and imposing two 5-year enhancements for the serious felonies.

In this timely appeal, defendant contends he was denied his right to meaningful access to the courts, the trial court failed to obtain a waiver of advisory counsel's conflict of interest, substantial evidence does not support the burglary conviction, and his prior conviction of making a criminal threat in violation of section 422 was not a serious felony under section 667, subdivision (a). Rejecting these contentions, we affirm.

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

Defendant began dating Shirelle Davis in February 2003. As a result of defendant's domestic violence, threatening telephone calls, and other harassment, Davis obtained a restraining order in June 2003 and broke off their relationship. On July 22, 2003, defendant persuaded Davis to meet with him to discuss resuming their relationship. Defendant became angry when Davis told him their relationship was over. He grabbed her arm, and while trying to pry her car keys from her fingers, wrestled Davis to the ground. When neighbors interceded, Davis broke free and drove away; but instead of going home, Davis reported the incident to the sheriff.

Dwight Yates lived next door to Davis. On the morning of July 23, 2003, Yates went to work, leaving his house locked and secured. Upon his return home, Yates found a previously secured screen was off of a bedroom window and a table had been moved under the window. A coin jar containing more than $200, which had been by the window in the bedroom, was missing, as was Yates's watch. Yates found a pair of boots in the backyard, which were later identified by Davis as boots she had seen worn by defendant. Later that day, Davis saw defendant wearing a watch she had never seen him wear before. Defendant was in possession of Yates's watch at the time of his arrest.

Also on July 23, 2003, defendant went to Davis's house and waited for her. When Davis arrived home, she saw defendant in his stocking feet with a gun in his hand.^[3] Defendant was upset and angry, asking if Davis had filed a restraining order or a police report the day before. Frightened by defendant's aggressive questioning, Davis denied filing a police report. Davis's brother, who overheard the encounter, called the police. Police officers arrived a short time later. When the officers knocked on the door and announced themselves, defendant ran into Davis's bedroom and hid the gun in a closet. Defendant was apprehended coming out of the bedroom in his stocking feet, wearing Yates's watch.

 

DISCUSSION

I

DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO REVERSAL ON

THE GROUND HE WAS DENIED ACCESS TO THE COURTS

 

Defendant argues he was denied meaningful access to the courts under the California Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant claims he was denied access to legal research, police reports, the telephone, defense witnesses, and the law library. These transgressions are also alleged to have infringed upon defendant's right to self-representation, contrary to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. We reject defendant's arguments on both procedural and substantive grounds.

 

A. The Background of Defendant's Claim

 

In order to put defendant's complaints in proper perspective, we set forth the pertinent portion of the record in some detail. Defendant was granted pro. per. status on December 4, 2003. The trial court granted him supplies and pro. per. telephone funds, and appointed an investigator to assist him. Between December 4, 2003, and April 2, 2004, defendant was granted pro. per. funds a total of eight times. Defendant served an informal discovery letter and filed 12 motions, supported by legal research. Trial was scheduled to begin on April 9, 2004.^[4]

On April 2, defendant appeared in court with Omar Bakari, a private attorney who served as defendant's advisory counsel.^[5] The trial court assured defendant that his pro. per. privilege would remain along with advisory counsel, and defendant agreed that he and advisory counsel would work as a team. When defendant stated he needed a subpoena served, but his investigator had already been relieved, the trial court offered to appoint another investigator.

On April 9, defendant answered ready for trial. Defendant did not seek a continuance, nor did he advise the trial court he had been denied access to the law library or was in any way unprepared. The trial court granted defendant's oral request for $40 in additional funds. Trial proceedings were held on April 16, 19, and 20, with no mention by defendant of any difficulty with trial preparation or access to the law library.

On April 21, after two witnesses testified, defendant, for the first time, raised the issue of law library access by stating, â€