Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 00204095-02
RIVERA, J.
Rodney Lee Carroll appeals from a judgment imposed upon his guilty plea to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). Defendant also admitted that he suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (d) & (e), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On January 24, 2008, an indictment was filed against defendant charging him with two counts of second degree robbery, one count of second degree commercial burglary, and the allegations that he suffered a prior strike conviction and a prior serious felony conviction. The indictment further alleged that defendant used a deadly weapon in the commission of the two robbery counts (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The charges stemmed from an incident in which defendant and a codefendant robbed a Starbucks at 499 Bay Street in San Francisco.
On April 14, 2008, defense counsel expressed doubt as to defendant’s competency. The court suspended criminal proceedings and ordered an evaluation of defendant pursuant to section 1368. On May 7, 2008, the court received the report of Dr. Kim who found defendant incompetent to stand trial. Criminal proceedings remained suspended. On May 28, 2008, the court appointed a second doctor to evaluate defendant’s competency. On July 21, 2008, the court ordered the reports from Dr. Kim and Dr. Meyers into evidence. Dr. Meyers reported that defendant was competent to stand trial and that his prior diagnosis of psychosis was due to malingering. The court found defendant competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal proceedings. Defendant then moved to represent himself. The court granted the motion.
On September 16, 2008, the court denied defendant’s motion for a continuance of the trial. The court also denied his motion to sever his trial from that of his codefendant, finding that the claims of prejudice raised were hypothetical and speculative. Defendant thereafter moved to relinquish his pro. per. status and to have an attorney appointed to represent him. The court denied the motion without prejudice.
On September 17, 2008, the court set aside its order denying defendant’s request to relinquish his right to represent himself. The court continued the matter to the following day to permit defendant time to consult with Janet Metzger, his prior defense counsel.
On September 18, 2008, after consulting with Metzger, defendant informed the court that he had reached an agreement with the district attorney. Defendant also informed the court that he wished to enter the plea while representing himself and that he was giving up his right to have an attorney represent him during the plea proceeding. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and pled guilty to one count of second degree robbery and admitted that he suffered a prior strike conviction and a prior serious felony conviction. The court dismissed the remaining counts and allegations of the indictment. The court appointed Metzger as stand-by counsel in the event defendant was unable to continue in his pro. per. status.
On November 18, 2009, the court sentenced defendant to the low term of two years for the robbery offense, doubled that term to four years under the three strikes law, and imposed a consecutive five-year term for the section 667, subdivision (a) enhancement. The court awarded defendant 756 days of custody credits.
There was no error in the sentencing. The court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RUVOLO, P.J., REARDON, J.