P. v. Martin
Filed 6/14/06 P. v. Martin CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant. | B182289 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA270785) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael K. Kellogg, Judge. Affirmed.
Linda Acaido, 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, Marc E. Turchin and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BACKGROUND
An undercover police officer observed appellant Charles Martin showing rocks of cocaine to another person. No sale was made. A chase ensued and appellant threw three rocks weighing over 28 grams into the street. He was subsequently apprehended, but no drug paraphernalia was found on his person.
Appellant was charged and convicted of possession for sale of cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, §11351.5.) He received a six-year state prison sentence. Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it refused to grant his requests to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). The first request was made at the end of the preliminary hearing. The court advised him to renew the motion at the next hearing, denied the request without making a formal inquiry into the matter, and acknowledged that appellant would have the right to represent himself. Appellant waited until the day of trial to renew his Faretta motion. The court denied the latter request for untimeliness.
Appellant requests that the sealed transcripts of the in camera hearing conducted pursuant Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess), be reviewed to determine if discovery requested by the defense was adequately disclosed. The People concede that this is appropriate.
DISCUSSION
A. Faretta Motion
1. Factual Background
At the close of the preliminary hearing on September 17, 2004, appellant stated that he wished to invoke his Faretta rights. The trial court stated, â€
