P. v. Blueford















Filed 10/8/10 P. v. Blueford CA2/2

>

>

>

>

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115 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



SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION
TWO




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HAKEEM BLUEFORD, Defendant and Appellant.

B214908 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA062759)

APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County.
John V. Meigs, Judge.
Reversed and remanded with directions.



John A.
Colucci, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.



Edmund G.
Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnson,
Joseph P. Lee, Lawrence M. Daniels and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________

A jury convicted Hakeem Blueford (appellant) of first degree murder and found that he
personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife, in committing the
murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a),
12022, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court
sentenced appellant to 25 years to life for the murder and a consecutive
one-year term for the weapon-use enhancement.

Appellant
appeals on the grounds that: (1) he was
denied his Sixth Amendment right to
confrontation when a DNA expert was allowed to testify regarding the results of
DNA analysis performed by someone else; (2) evidence of the victim's prior
police report of a threat by appellant, without opportunity for
cross-examination, violated appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confront and
cross-examine witnesses and was inadmissible hearsay despite Evidence Code
section 1370; (3) evidence of the victim's prior police report of a threat by
appellant did not qualify for admission under Evidence Code section 1370, and
its admission violated appellant's due process right to a state entitlement
under Hicks v. Oklahoma (1980) 447
U.S. 343 (Hicks); (4) numerous
instances of prosecutorial misconduct rendered appellant's trial unfair and a
violation of due process; (5) the trial court erred in admitting prior
uncharged bad acts and in failing to provide a meaningful limiting instruction,
thus allowing introduction of prejudicial character evidence that denied
appellant a fair trial and due process; (6) the trial court erred in admitting
gruesome photographs of the victim's body, which inflamed the jury and caused
outbursts in the audience, and it erred in denying a mistrial on this ground;
(7) the trial court erred in denying appellant's five mistrial motions;
(8) the trial court erred in denying appellant his right under >Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S.
806 (Faretta) to represent himself at
sentencing and the new trial motion hearing; (9) the trial court erred in
convening a hearing under People v.
Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden)
when appellant sought to discharge retained counsel; and (10) the cumulative
effect of the trial errors requires reversal.

FACTS

Prosecution
Evidence

Appellant and Shanise Blueford
(Shanise), the victim in this case, married on November 8, 2001.
Shanise was 15 or 16 years old when they began dating and 19 when they
married. Appellant was three years
older. Their daughter, K., was born in
June 2002. The couple separated in
January 2005, and Shanise moved with her daughter into her own apartment in
April of that year. In June 2005,
appellant went to live in Maryland.

In late
July 2005, Shanise's mother, Che-rie Edwards (Edwards) and Edwards's
14-year-old daughter, Anastasia, moved into Shanise's apartment. In early August 2005, Edwards's friend,
Marvin Brown (Brown), began staying in the apartment also. Brown agreed to use his car to provide
transportation for Shanise and Edwards in exchange for staying in the apartment.

In August
2005, Shanise was in a romantic relationship with Antonio Toy (Toy). Shanise met Toy through her younger brother,
Michael. Toy lived in Victorville, and
he and Shanise spoke often by telephone.
Toy planned on staying at Shanise's apartment for a time beginning on Thursday, September 1, 2005. One week before that, on August 25, 2005, appellant arrived in Los
Angeles.

On or about
the morning of August 25, 2005,
Shanise told Brown that appellant was coming to Los
Angeles and was to meet her at her workplace at
lunchtime. Shanise asked Brown to record
the license number of appellant's car when appellant arrived in the parking
lot. Shanise seemed nervous. As Shanise left her workplace and approached appellant's
car, she waved to Brown, who was waiting in his car. Brown noted the license plate number. Shanise introduced appellant to Brown and got
into appellant's car.

Shanise
told appellant he could stay in her apartment.
He placed his luggage in Shanise's bedroom the day of his arrival but
did not stay overnight. He did not
return to sleep there until August 30,
2005.

On August
27 or 28, 2005, Edwards noticed that appellant's tattoo saying â€