Avila

People v. Avila

Good Law
11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 894·117 Cal. App. 4th 771·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 472·2004 Daily Journal DAR 4429·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3121
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 8, 2004F042072California4,177 words

Opinion

Opinion

Buckley, J.

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL FACTS

On four days in February of 2002, defendant visited Lampe Lumber and charged merchandise totaling approximately $1,200 to the account of G and G Construction, a company owned by defendant’s cousin, Fred Gonzales. Defendant was not authorized to charge merchandise on this account.

Defendant was convicted after jury trial of four counts of second degree commercial burglary; the court found tme one prior strike allegation and three prior prison term enhancement allegations. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 1170.12, subd. (c)(1), 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.

In the published portion of this opinion, we consider defendant’s argument that he was suffering from such debilitating pain during the trial that he was “mentally absent,” and therefore the trial court’s refusal to suspend the proceedings was an infringement of various statutory and constitutional rights. As we will explain, this argument fails because the record does not show that defendant was unable to comprehend the nature of the proceedings or to assist counsel in his defense. The trial was conducted in a manner that reasonably accommodated defendant’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.