People v. Israel CA6

facts. 2 The trial court ruled that defendant was eligible for resentencing, pursuant to section 1170.126, on the vehicle theft and reckless evasion counts. On July 18, 2013, defendant filed a motion to represent himself. At a hearing that same day, defendant stated that he was ready to immediately proceed on the resentencing, and the trial court granted defendant’s self-representation motion. Upon the grant of self- representation, defendant stated his desire to file “motions to strike [his] prior strike allegations,” and he requested “a 30-day continuance to prepare [himself] for the Romero hearing.” The trial court stated that defendant had a Romero hearing when he was originally sentenced in 2005, and that Romero relief was denied at that time. The trial court ruled that it would not consider a new Romero motion, explaining: “I know of nothing under the law that would allow a re-litigation of a Romero hearing which was initially heard by the trial court after the verdict prior to sentencing. . . . [¶] There is nothing in the law under section 1170.126 or Prop. 36 which says at a resentencing hearing that the Court will re-litigate a Romero hearing.” Immediately after denying…