P. v. Cardoza
Filed 9/14/06 P. v. Cardoza CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE CARDOZA, Defendant and Appellant. | C050036
(Super. Ct. No. 04F08331)
|
After he drove a stolen car and attempted to avoid arrest, defendant Lawrence Cardoza entered a negotiated plea of no contest to evading a peace officer while driving in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), with the understanding that he would receive the low term prison sentence, which would be doubled if the court found true an allegation he previously committed a carjacking, a strike offense. Thereafter, the court found the strike allegation true, and defendant received an aggregate sentence of 32 months.
On appeal, defendant contends that, after he pled no contest but before trial of his strike offense, he made a Faretta[1] motion to represent himself, which the court erred in denying. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Given the single issue defendant raises on appeal, we recount only the facts relating to his Faretta motion.
Defendant entered his no contest plea on February 3, 2005. At the outset of proceedings on February 25, 2005, the date scheduled for court trial of the allegation he committed a prior strike offense, defendant was agitated and complaining about his trial counsel:
â€
