People v. Gonzalez

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAMIAN EZEQUIEL GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

E081204

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

April 26, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. BAF2101154. Harold W. Hopp, Judge. Affirmed.

Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Sahar Karimi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

RAMIREZ P. J.

Defendant Damian Ezequiel Gonzalez went to trial on charges of stalking, in violation of Penal Code^[1] section 646.9, subdivision (a), and a misdemeanor charge of making harassing telephone calls and other contacts using electronic communication devices, under section 653m, subdivision (b). The charges arose from extended, persistent, and unsolicited communications between defendant and a professor at a local two-year college, with whom defendant was obsessed, even after the issuance of a restraining order. Prior to trial criminal proceedings were suspended when trial counsel expressed a doubt as to defendant's competence, within the meaning of section 1368 et seq., but defendant was found to be competent to stand trial.

During his trial, defendant attempted to discharge his court-appointed attorney, making his first request to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta), which he withdrew after learning he would not be released from custody, and which was followed by a second request to represent himself. The court granted the second request. Following his conviction on the charges, defendant appealed.

On appeal, defendant argues (1) the trial court failed to inquire into defendant's competence to waive his right to counsel, and (2) failed to ensure that defendant's waiver of his right to counsel was made knowingly and intelligently. We affirm.

Background

A. Facts Pertaining to the Charges

In November 2018, a professor of psychology (the victim) who taught at a community college, noticed the defendant sitting in the corner of her class by himself. She asked the defendant if he was enrolled in the class; he said he was not and asked if he could enroll. The victim told the defendant that he could enroll if there was availability, and defendant did so. Defendant emailed the victim during the semester about needing a counselor, but when the victim recommended one for him, he declined.

Defendant emailed the victim repeatedly throughout November and December 2018. In the email dated November 7, 2018, defendant accused the victim of cheating on him, although the victim had never flirted with defendant or discussed dating him, and it made her feel threatened. The victim reported the emails to the college's dean and her supervisor, and they told her they would handle it. Defendant also sent the victim emails that sounded delusional, speaking obliquely in one email about how the victim's class opened his eyes to many things he did not understand before, and indicating that he knew "why things happened the way they did." The victim again reported the emails to the dean and her supervisor.

Defendant was undeterred; in a subsequent email, he told the victim he had lied to her, did not need help and led her to believe there was an experiment, but the victim did not know what he meant by that. He knew the victim was afraid to be alone with him "out of fear for [her] safety." That same day he sent another email telling the victim he had a crush on her, that he did not blame her tactics, and that he had depression and personal issues. The victim's supervisor and the dean told the victim they had informed defendant that the victim was afraid for her safety and advised him not to contact her. But the defendant continued to contact her, making her anxious, and causing her to file yet another report to her supervisor and the dean.

On December 1, 2018, the victim filed a student report against defendant, after which the college resource officer Deputy Sheriff Ryan Weber escorted the victim around campus and told defendant to leave the victim alone. Despite the defendant being informed that the victim did not want a relationship with him, and defendant being told he could only email the victim about school-related topics, defendant continued to send non-school-related emails to the victim. On December 7, defendant emailed the victim to say that he "chose to walk away yesterday because [he] knew whose help [the victim] preferred, and [he] had to prove to [him]self [he] was letting go," which made the victim feel threatened and scared. The victim felt harassed because defendant would not leave her alone.

On December 21, 2018, defendant emailed the victim to state he tried to let her go but that she was '"just too precious"' to him and indicating he '"was stupid in thinking [he] wanted to forget [the victim]."' He went on to say, '"All I can do now is seek Jesus with a sincere heart in order to replace this emptiness, because I still don't trust in other people, and I especially do not believe in luck. If you really are a woman of faith, I just ask you to pray for me."' The victim felt threatened by this email and believed defendant would physically harm her.

After the semester concluded, defendant emailed the victim on February 5, 2019, telling her "there are many attractive ladies at [the school] but none of them compare[s] to the beautiful psychology professor I cannot seem to forget. I do not deserve you, but I need you, [the victim's name]. You are still the motivation that keeps me going in the IE. I'll stop thinking about suicide and wait for you, even if it means waiting in vain, because you are that special. My love, [defendant]." The victim was very frightened and stressed upon reading this email. Two days later, defendant sent emails indicating he did not intend to harass her but that he missed her. This email made the victim feel really worried.

In May 2019, he emailed the victim stating he had talked to her deceased father. Sometime that same month, defendant casually approached the victim, while she was on campus with her supervisor, to apologize to her. The victim began to think defendant was following her.

Because defendant did not heed the advisals to stop emailing the victim about nonschool related matters, the school held a suspension hearing, which was recorded by deputy Weber, and the recording was played for the jury. Weber had turned on his body-worn camera when defendant described to him a sexual fantasy of his involving the victim, in which he would give the victim a ride home because her car had broken down and defendant would force himself on her to see what her reaction would be. Defendant was suspended, and the school told him not to contact the victim. The victim was scared for her safety. The victim then saw defendant's vehicle parked outside her mother's home and obtained a restraining order.

In July 2019, defendant was served with a temporary restraining order preventing him from contacting the victim. While serving defendant with the restraining order, the detective took a photo of defendant's vehicle. A few months later; however, on November 11, 2019, the defendant emailed the victim with a message referring to a prior incident and indicating he could not resist the urge to reach out to her and wanted to ask her how she was doing and if there was any desire to talk to him.

Three days later, defendant sent another message to the victim professing his love for her, indicating he did not care if he was banned from the college, and apologizing if his email was harassment. Believing defendant was obsessed with her, the victim feared for her safety. A short time later, after unsuccessfully attempting to locate defendant, deputy Weber posed as the victim through her email to ask the defendant if he would meet the victim. The defendant agreed to meet the victim at a coffee shop next to the college. When Weber arrived at the coffee shop, he arrested the defendant for violating the restraining order as defendant was leaving the coffee shop.

In July 2021, deputy Weber again detained and interviewed defendant, who had continued to stalk the victim on her social media accounts as well as by email; in the interview, defendant admitted he knew the victim was afraid, that he looked for her by conducting a search on Google, that he was angry, and that he visited the victim's father's gravesite.

B. Procedural Matters

For context, we describe all the proceedings leading to court order allowing defendant to represent himself. The People filed a second amended information charging defendant with stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a); count 1) and repeated and annoying electronic communication (§ 653m, subd. (b); count 2).^[2] On November 30, 2021, before commencement of defendant's first trial, defense counsel expressed a doubt as to defendant's competence pursuant to section 1368. On December 3,2021, the court granted the request for a referral for an evaluation, suspended criminal proceedings, and appointed two psychologists, Dr. Herberth Valle and Dr. Robert L. Suiter, to conduct evaluations. Dr. Suiter concluded defendant was competent, while Dr. Valle concluded he was not. On March 3, 2022, at defendant's request, a third psychologist was appointed, Dr. William H. Jones and conducted an evaluation, in which the psychologist concluded defendant was competent.

On April 7, 2022, the parties stipulated the court could rule on the basis of the competency reports and the court found defendant competent to stand trial and reinstated...