Severance

People v. Severance

Caution
138 Cal. App. 4th 305·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 475·2006 Daily Journal DAR 4055·41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2816
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 5, 2006C048410California7,460 words

Opinion

Opinion

Robie, J.

In a prior appeal, this court remanded this case for trial on defendant Victor Lee Severance’s plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. At the beginning of that trial, the court denied defendant’s belated request to represent himself. At the end of the trial, the court granted the prosecution’s motion for a directed verdict of sanity.

In this appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his request to represent himself and in directing a verdict of sanity. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s belated request for self-representation because defendant’s purpose was “to delay or disrupt the proceedings.” We also conclude that a trial court has the power to direct a verdict of sanity when there is no substantial evidence that the defendant was insane at the time of his crimes. Since that was the case here, the trial court did not err in taking the issue of defendant’s sanity from the jury. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In January 2000 defendant robbed a coffee shop, and in May 2000 he robbed two stores. At his arraignment in September 2000, he entered dual pleas of not…

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.