P. v. Kopay 5/14/09 CA4/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: E044352

Case Date: 09/10/2009

Preview:Filed 5/14/09 P. v. Kopay CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SCOTT CHRISTIAN KOPAY, Defendant and Appellant. E044352 (Super.Ct.No. CR45283) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Carl E. Davis,* Helios (Joe) Hernandez, David Wesley,** and Donal B. Donnelly,*** Judges. Affirmed. Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Retired judge of the Riverside Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the California Constitution. Judge of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. Judge of the Superior Court for Imperial County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
*** ** *

1

Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant appeals the trial courts order extending his involuntary treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) within the meaning of Penal Code sections 2970 and 2972.1 Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to address his request to represent himself. Defendant also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in granting numerous continuances of the trial of the involuntary recommitment petition. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 1. Factual and Procedural Background On February 25, 1993, defendant was sentenced to 14 years in state prison, after pleading guilty to first degree burglary (

Download P. v. Kopay 5/14/09 CA4/2.pdf