People v. Prasad CA2/3

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Prasad asserts a number of claimed errors in his criminal trial and sentencing. Appellant claims that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. He asserts a violation of the confrontation clause and an abuse of discretion because the trial judge limited his cross-examination regarding Wal-Mart’s procedures and policies for detaining shoplifters. The appellant objects that the trial judge was not fair and impartial. And, he objects to an impermissible dual use of his prior convictions. We find these arguments to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant entered a Wal-Mart store. As observed both by store security and video cameras located throughout the store, appellant took a Gateway computer box and placed it in his cart. He removed the anti-theft “spider wrap” from the computer box. Appellant then went to the appliance section and pulled a boxed George Foreman grill off the shelf. Appellant took the grill out of the Foreman box and put it on a lower shelf. Appellant then removed the computer tower from the Gateway box and put it into the empty Foreman grill…