People v. Romo CA2/6

DISCUSSION

The Record Does Not Support Romo’s Argument On appeal, Romo argues that his waiver of counsel was not in writing, as required by sections 1203.2, subdivision (b)(2) and 3455. He emphasizes that those sections expressly refer to written waivers. But the record does not support Romo’s argument. Instead, the record is replete with references to his signed waiver. During the revocation hearing, Romo

2 All future dates are in the year 2015. 2 responded to a question by admitting that he signed a waiver. When defense counsel stated that he had not seen it, Meza confirmed that she had a copy. She was directed by the court to show the copy of the waiver to the parties. And in his notice of appeal, Romo complains that the trial court “approved a waiver signed by appellant” over his objection. The record is sufficient to permit adequate and effective appellate review. Romo does not meet his burden to demonstrate otherwise. (People v. Elliot (2012) 53 Cal.4th 535, 595.) Romo did not apply for augmentation to the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.324(b), 8.340(b).) Here the record contains multiple references to a signed waiver. Romo fails to explain how he has been…