Opinion
2d Crim. No. B225760
12-29-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDY CRESPIN, Defendant and Crespin.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. KA087570)
(Los Angeles County)
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 30, 2011, be modified as follows:
1. On page 4, the last sentence of the fourth paragraph which reads "Ulloa had tattoos on each of his arms, and on his right wrist," is deleted and replaced with the following sentence:
Crespin had tattoos on each of his hands, on the side of his face, and on his neck.
2. On page 5, the following paragraph is added, immediately after the fourth full paragraph:
In addition, Crespin called David Veloz to testify. Veloz knew Crespin for many years. Around June 2009, Veloz allowed Crespin to move into his apartment at 1900 Fullerton Road.
3. On page 9, the following sentences are added to the end of the first full paragraph, immediately after the last sentence, which ends with the phrase, "another courtroom:"
The court advised Crespin that it would not continue the case beyond January 7 based only upon his self-represented status. Crespin then asked, "What if something pops up as new evidence[?]" The court responded that Crespin's self-represented status would not be a reason to ask for another continuance. Crespin stated that he understood.
4. On page 7, the following paragraph is added, immediately before the DISCUSSION, on the first line:
After the jury convicted him, Crespin moved for a new trial. Among other things, he argued that by denying his request to continue the trial, the trial court impaired his defense and violated his right to a fair trial. Crespin offered evidence that someone else used Wasit's stolen cell phone while Crespin was in custody. He claimed that such evidence could show that another person robbed Wasit. The court considered the fingerprint evidence, as well as evidence regarding the stolen cell phone. Crespin argued that if the court had granted his continuance requests, he could have made another Pitchess motion to obtain impeachment or rebuttal witnesses; obtained a fingerprint expert; and asked different questions at trial. The court denied the new trial motion.
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.