People v. Carrasco CA3

BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged with failing to register as a sex offender following his release from incarceration (Pen. Code, § 290.015, subd. (a)), 1 and it was alleged he had served five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12). On January 2, 2019, the trial court held a trial readiness conference for this case and another case involving a stolen vehicle. Defendant initially confirmed that he was rejecting the prosecution’s plea offer for this case after his counsel discussed the offer with him “at length.” The court then asked whether defendant wanted “a jury trial on that?” The following conversation ensued: “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you want a jury trial or court trial? “THE DEFENDANT: Court trial would be nice. “THE COURT: All right. So -- “THE DEFENDANT: Respectful. “THE COURT: You understand, Mr. Carrasco, that you have a right to have a jury trial. And what that includes is that we bring down individuals from the community, and those are chosen by some questioning, and that includes questioning by your attorney. And that they would ultimately be the fact finder in that. And it’s my understanding, which…