P. v. Baul
A jury convicted appellant Joel Baul of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a))[1] (count 1); two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) (counts 2 & 5); assault with intent to commit rape (§ 220, subd. (a)) (count 3); and attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211) (count 4). With respect to counts 1, 3 and 4, the jury found that appellant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The jury also found true the allegations that appellant had suffered three prior prison term convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), that he had suffered two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a), and that he had suffered six prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
The trial court sentenced appellant to state prison for a total of 119 years to life as a third-strike defendant. In count 1 (carjacking), the trial court imposed the high term of nine years tripled, or 27 years, with a one-year enhancement for knife use, 10 years for two 5-year priors, and three years for three 1-year priors for a total of 41 years to life in count 1. In count 3 (assault with intent to commit rape), the trial court imposed a consecutive term of 25 years to life with one year for knife use, 10 years for two 5-year priors, and three years for three 1-year priors for a total of 39 years to life in count 3. In count 4 (attempted robbery), the trial court imposed a consecutive term of 25 years to life, with one year for knife use, 10 years for two 5-year priors, and three years for three 1-year priors for a total of 39 years to life in count 4. The trial court stayed sentences of 38 years to life in counts 2 and 5 under section 654.
Appellant appeals on the grounds that: (1) he was deprived of his constitutional right to self-representation; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in count 3; (3) the trial court erroneously denied new counsel a copy of the trial transcript to prepare a defense for postconviction and sentencing proceedings; (4) appellant is entitled to per se reversal of his sentence because he was completely denied the assistance of counsel during his sentencing hearing; and (5) two of the one-year prison prior enhancements imposed in counts 1 through 5 should be stricken because the prior convictions for these prison priors were used to enhance appellant’s sentence under section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
Comments on P. v. Baul