P. v. Isaac
Ricky Isaac appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on one count of commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)[1] and one count of petty theft with three prior convictions of certain offenses (§§ 666, subd. (a), 484, subd. (a)). We order the judgment modified to impose mandatory fees under section 1465.8 and Government Code section 70373. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
On May 15, 2012, around 8:30 p.m., Piry Chavrin was working at the Fiore Market Cafe in South Pasadena, helping with a cooking class that was being held after regular business hours. The class was being held in a patio on the side of the building. The front door of the building was closed but not locked. Chavrin heard a bell that rings when the cash register is opened, so he went to the front room to check who had opened it. He saw appellant taking money out of the register. Chavrin yelled, “Hey,†startling appellant.
Appellant ran out the door, and Chavrin chased him, calling for the cafe owner, William Disselhorst. Chavrin and Disselhorst chased appellant down the street, tackled him, and held him until the police arrived. When appellant stood up, there was a pile of money under him. The amount of money matched the amount taken from the cash register.
Appellant was charged by information with second degree commercial burglary (§ 459), petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)), and petty theft with three priors (§ 666, subd. (a)). The information further alleged that appellant had suffered eight prior convictions and served prison terms pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Appellant made a Marsden motion, seeking to replace his counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) After holding a hearing, the court denied his request. Appellant thereafter refused to attend the trial. Appellant was deemed to be voluntarily absent pursuant to section 1043. The jury was instructed that appellant was unable to be there and that it should not make any assumptions in his favor or against him based on his absence.
Comments on P. v. Isaac