P. v. Jackson

Filed 4/13/06 P. v. Jackson CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James B. Pierce, Judge. Affirmed.

Jeanine G. Strong, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

INTRODUCTION

After a bench trial, the trial court found defendant and appellant Vince Lamont Jackson guilty of one count of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle without the owner's consent. During the bench trial, defendant testified, and the trial court questioned defendant. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court's questioning deprived him of his rights to due process and to a fair trial. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Factual background.

Defendant and Jerald Nettles were residents of a sober living house. During the evening of August 31, 2004, defendant told Nettles he had taken Nettles's car keys. Later that night, defendant hit Nettles. A few hours later, defendant took Nettles's car without his permission. A police officer found defendant with Nettles's car. The car was running, and defendant had one foot in the car and one foot out of it.

II. Procedural background.

Trial was by the court sitting without a jury.^[1] On February 25, 2005, the court found defendant guilty of taking a vehicle without the owner's consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) That same day, the court found allegations of priors to be true and sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months doubled under the Three Strikes law to 2 years 8 months.

DISCUSSION

I. Defendant was not deprived of his rights to due process or to a fair trial.

During the court trial, the judge asked defendant questions. On appeal, defendant's sole contention is the trial court's questioning violated his right to trial by a neutral and impartial fact finder under the federal and state constitutions (U.S. Const., 6th & 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art I, §§ 7, 15, 24). We do not agree that defendant was deprived of his constitutional rights.

A. Additional facts.

Defendant testified. He said that sometime in early August 2004 some of his money was stolen. Thereafter, on August 31, suspecting Nettles of having something to do with the missing money, defendant picked up Nettles's keys and asked him how it felt not to be able to find something. Defendant intended to give the keys back, but Nettles left. Later, an emergency came up, and defendant needed to pick up his daughter, who was at his niece's house. Defendant asked Nettles if he could borrow his car, and Nettles said he could borrow it.

The trial court then interjected, â€