P. v. Zimmerman

Filed 5/16/06  P. v. Zimmerman CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.  Arthur Harrison, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Stephen S. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Quisteen S. Shum, Angela M. Borzachillo and Robert M. Foster, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            Defendant Raymond Lee Zimmerman appeals from judgment entered following jury convictions for second degree commercial burglary (counts 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7; Pen. Code, § 459^[1]), possession of a controlled substance (counts 2 and 8; Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property (count 3; § 496, subd. (a)).

            The jury also found true two strike priors and two 1-year prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)); that defendant committed counts 4 through 8 after he had been released from jail on bond (§ 12022.1); and that defendant had previously been convicted of receiving stolen property and of possession of a controlled substance (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

            The trial court sentenced defendant to 54 years to life in state prison.

            Defendant contends the trial court violated his right to self-representation by initially denying his request to represent himself, and then later, after allowing him to represent himself, by refusing to provide him with ancillary services necessary to representing himself effectively.  Defendant further contends that, when the trial court inadvertently provided the jury with a box of tools, which had not been admitted into evidence, defendant was prejudicially deprived of his rights to an unbiased jury and confrontation.  Defendant also claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to strike at least one of his prior convictions (strikes).

            We conclude the trial court did not commit any prejudicial error and affirm the judgment.

1.  Facts

            We need not provide a detailed statement of the facts as to each of defendant's offenses, with the exception of the burglary involving the box of tools (counts 1 through 3), since defendant does not raise issues turning on the facts of the other crimes.

Counts 1, 2, and 3

            On January 10, 2002, defendant broke into Michael Roy's â€