P.

DISCUSSION

Gloston claims he was denied his federal and state constitutional rights to be present during a critical stage of his criminal proceedings when the trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to three years in state prison, time to run consecutive to the five-year term he already was serving in federal prison. Although Gloston, through counsel, earlier had given his unconditional consent to be sentenced in absentia on the

2. Madera case, he claims that when this request was denied by the superior court, his earlier consent became “null and void.” Gloston bases this conclusion on the fact that his subsequent motion made pursuant to Penal Code section 1389 did not adopt the “old consent form” or include a “new consent form.” We will review the procedural record in detail, concluding that Gloston‟s argument lacks merit. We affirm.

I. September 6, 2011, letter

On September 6, 2011, Steven K. Gradert, Assistant Federal Public Defender, wrote a letter addressed to the Clerk of the Madera Superior Court (letter). The letter was filed on September 9, 2011. In it, Mr. Gradert advised that he represented Gloston in a federal prosecution in which Gloston had been…