People v. Frias

317 Cal.Rptr.3d 202

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Alexander Alberto FRIAS, Defendant and Appellant.

B322762

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7.

Filed January 12, 2024

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jared D. Moses and Dorothy L. Shubin, Judges. Reversed and remanded with directions. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA103080)

Law Offices of Jason Szydlik and Jason Szydlik, San Francisco, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Gary A. Lieberman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

FEUER, Acting P.J.

Alexander Alberto Frias appeals from a judgment of conviction after the jury found him guilty of stalking. On appeal, Frias contends the trial court, in denying his four requests to substitute the Castaneda Law firm as his counsel, violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Frias’s first three requests to substitute in the Castaneda firm because the firm’s attorneys were not ready for trial and the case had been pending for three years, during which time four different attorneys had handled Frias’s defense at his request. But denial of Frias’s fourth request was an abuse of discretion.

At the time of the fourth request, the case had been pending for three-and-a-half years, the case was set for trial as a six of 10 date, and the prosecutor and deputy public defender had announced ready for trial. This time, however, an attorney from the Castaneda firm announced he was ready for trial, subject to a few witness scheduling issues (the same issues the deputy public, defender had). We recognize the trial court was concerned in light of the history of the case that the Castaneda firm’s attorneys would seek a further continuance to prepare for trial once the firm was appointed, or that Frias on the day of trial would yet again seek to substitute in new counsel. But nothing in the record shows that the Castaneda firm was not prepared for trial, and the court did not make a further inquiry to confirm its suspicion the firm was not ready. Accordingly, absent any support in the record, the court’s concerns were not sufficient grounds on which to deny Frias’s request to have retained counsel of his choice. If the Castaneda firm’s attorneys later requested a continuance or Frias requested new counsel, the court retained the discretion to deny the requests. And regardless of whether the court believed the deputy public defender or Castaneda firm attorneys would do a better job in defending Frias, that was Frias’s choice to make. We therefore reverse the judgment based on the trial court’s denial of Frias’s right to counsel of his choice.

We also review the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether Frias may be tried again for stalking. We conclude substantial evidence supports Frias’s conviction, and we remand for a new trial.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Evidence at Trial

In 2017 Courtney C. received a friend request on her Facebook account from Frias, which she denied because she did not know him. Frias posted comments on Courtney’s Facebook "time line" and photographs she had posted. Courtney deleted Frias’s posts and blocked him approximately 10 times, thinking the posts were from "a troll." Despite her efforts to block Frias, he continued to post on her account. By the summer of 2017, Frias posted on Courtney’s account every couple of weeks.

On February 13, 2018 Courtney found flowers on her car at work. Courtney thought a former student who had visited that day left the flowers. She took a photograph of the flowers and posted it on Facebook. When Courtney came home, she placed the flowers in a vase on her kitchen counter.¹ Courtney did not post a picture of the flowers. On February 14 she received a Facebook post commenting on the flowers in the vase. Courtney testified she was "[t]errified" because "this person who [she] thought was a nobody … was actually a real person arid knew [her] or somehow knew … that [she] had gotten flowers." Courtney again blocked Frias.

On February 16, 2018 Courtney received a Facebook message from Frias that read, "I am so sorry if I spooked you in any way at all. I sat back and thought about all the random stuff I’ve been doing and wow, just wow. I would love for you to be around in my life in some sort of way, but if not, shit, no big deal, dam[n]. You have my number, if and when you ever feel like contacting me it would be awesome[.] I’m pretty sure you’[re] not spooked, but I swear I’m just a regular dude, kinda boring also, sometimes deep, sometimes, but if not, like I said no big deal. I am sorry, I got super super super on one about you, and I felt like I had a deep connection with you and like I knew you my whole life. It’s probably cause we’re a couple of valley kids that grew up around the same time…." Courtney was concerned the person who posted on Facebook knew where she worked and that she "grew up in the valley."

On March 1, 2018 Frias posted another message on Courtney’s Facebook account: "You may not feel the same, but being brokenhearted and longing for someone is fucking beautiful. It’s what my favorite songs are about. It’s who. I am. Thanks for making, me a part of this exclusive—I’m assuming that’s exclusive—club again. I love this feeling. Nothing like it. Till we meet again." Courtney did not know what Frias meant by "till we meet again" because she had never met him. Her "anxiety started to grow," and the statement "really seared" her.

At 3:00 a.m. on March 10, 2018 Frias knocked on Courtney’s apartment floor and announced himself by name. Courtney threatened to call the police. By the time the police officers arrived, Frias had left. Approximately an hour later, Frias followed up with a long post on Courtney’s Facebook account stating that "cops are three-quarter retarded" and "[w]e are connected on a deeper level and I can’t fucken stop this shit." He made other statements that again showed he had been watching her, including that she watched a lot of movies, she changed her hairstyle, she wore a poncho and a bandana on separate occasions, and she owned a white car. He continued, "[U]gly guys stalk, I’m an admirer from afar, and I’m tired of it." Frias concluded, "Please just show me the real you. To be honest tonight was an awesome start." Courtney testified that when she read Frias’s message, her "hand was shaking so much that [her] friend had to take the phone out of [her] hand." Courtney added, "And the police obviously didn’t scare him" because he "wrote this right after they left."

On the afternoon of March 10 Courtney’s mother Amanda sent Frias a text message stating she was " ‘trying to reach Alexander Albert.’ " On March 18 at approximately 10:27 p.m. Amanda received a response to her text message stating, " ‘Meet me downstairs so you can suck this dick.’ " Amanda assumed Frias believed he was writing to Courtney and that he was at the gate to Courtney’s' apartment complex. When Courtney learned about Frias’s response, she "didn’t feel safe" and "was terrified" because it was "happening again like he said it would." Courtney was a block or two away from her apartment and drove back to her apartment complex. She stayed in her car and called the police.

At approximately 10:55 p.m. the police arrived and found Frias sitting in the building’s parking lot. The police officers detained him, and at some point Frias shouted, " ‘Courtney, baby, love me.’ "

B. The Verdict and Sentencing

The jury found Frias guilty of felony stalking. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a).)² On August 1, 2022 the trial court imposed and suspended Frias’s sentence, placed him on formal probation for two years, and ordered him to serve 192 days in county jail with 192 days of credit for time served. The court also issued a 10-year protective order requiring Frias not to contact Courtney and to stay at least 100 yards away from her.

Frias timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

A. The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Denying Frias’s Final Request for Substitution of Counsel

1. Trial court proceedings

On May 10, 2018 deputy public defender Jeffrey Graves represented Frias at the preliminary hearing. On October 25, 2018 the trial court granted Frias’s request to substitute in Mark Melnick as his attorney.

At the August 23, 2019 hearing, Melnick stated Frias was requesting the court relieve him and appoint the public defender. Melnick added, "I would say we have reached an impasse, in our relationship, and there is a conflict at this point." The trial court³ granted Frias’s request and appointed the public defender’s office (deputy public defender Noah Cox) as counsel. The court informed Frias, "You have the right to have counsel of your choice, and if you want to have, the public defender, I will reappoint them. However, I express my concern that this case has been pending for a year with your private counsel. You, had the public defender for three months, [then] pending for a year with Mr. Melnick. I express my concern that this may be for purposes of delay. But I am reappointing the public defender."

On November 4, 2019 Frias requested Amber Gordon be substituted in as his attorney. The trial court granted Frias’s request but again expressed concern about Frias’s "conduct going back and forth with different attorneys when he’s already been admonished about this."

On October 1, 2020 the prosecutor and Gordon announced they were ready for trial. The trial court set October 6 as the trial date. However, on October 6 Gordon declared a doubt as to Frias’s mental competence, and the court suspended the criminal proceedings.

On December 3, 2020, while court proceedings were suspended, Gordon informed the trial court that Frias was requesting new counsel, which Gordon supported because of a...