People v. Galvez CA2/5, B254807

Background

On April 10, 2012 Jaime Galvez led police on a high‑speed freeway pursuit, during which officers heard a shotgun report, saw a shotgun pointing from his car, and later recovered a loaded shotgun, spent shells, and live rounds after Galvez crashed. Officers observed erratic driving and noncompliant, belligerent conduct after the crash.
Galvez admitted heavy use of alcohol, prescription and illegal drugs that day and testified he had hallucinations and blackouts; a defense expert opined substance use and mental health problems could impair specific intent.
A jury convicted Galvez of multiple offenses including assault on a peace officer with a firearm, shooting at an occupied vehicle, evading police with wanton disregard, felon with a firearm, resisting arrest, and DUI; court found prior strike and firearm enhancements true.
Defense sought to represent himself (Faretta) multiple times; requests were denied as untimely or abandoned after the court later allowed an insanity plea and then Galvez withdrew the pro se request.
Trial court allowed the defense to call Galvez to testify during the prosecution’s case (out of order); later, after the guilty verdict, the court directed a verdict of sanity at the sanity phase.
On appeal Galvez raised Faretta denial, being compelled to testify out of order, instructional errors (voluntary intoxication/mental impairment), ineffective assistance (failure to object to hearsay in psychiatric records and to request instructions), cumulative error, and challenge to a five‑year §667(a) enhancement imposed at sentencing.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Galvez’s Argument	Held
Denial of Faretta requests	Requests untimely; defendant not ready for trial; court properly denied	Denial violated Faretta right to self‑representation	Waiver/abandonment: Galvez withdrew request and acquiesced to counsel; no reversible error
Court required Galvez to testify mid‑case	Court reasonably sought to use available time; defendant knowingly waived right by electing to testify	Ordering testimony before prosecution finished violated Fifth and Sixth Amendments; prejudicial	Even if error, harmless beyond reasonable doubt (testimony unlikely changed outcome; prosecution evidence overwhelming)
Failure to exclude hearsay in jail mental‑health record / lack of limiting instruction	Expert properly relied on records; counsel had tactical reasons not to request limiting instruction	Counsel ineffective for failing to object/request limiting instruction to prevent hearsay being considered for truth	No clear proof counsel had no tactical justification; claim better raised in habeas; not shown prejudicial ineffective assistance
Voluntary intoxication & mental‑impairment instructions omitted/insufficient	Court correctly instructed as to elements it was required to and had no sua sponte duty to give pinpoint instructions for other counts	Instruction on CALCRIM 3426 failed to mention knowledge element; counsel ineffective for not requesting modified or additional instructions	Issues forfeited by failure to request modifications; ineffective assistance not proved and any omission harmless given instructions overall and strong evidence
Directed verdict on sanity phase	Trial court has discretion to direct verdict where defendant fails to present substantial evidence of legal insanity	Only jury may resolve sanity; directing verdict violates due process/right to jury	Court followed binding appellate precedent allowing directed verdict; substantial evidence lacking (no expert, only conclusory self‑testimony); direction proper
Unauthorized §667(a) five‑year enhancement	Enhancement imposed by trial court at sentencing	Enhancement not alleged in charging pleading and not proved/admitted; unauthorized	Enhancement unauthorized and must be stricken on remand

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognizing Sixth Amendment right to self‑representation)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (self‑representation right may be waived/abandoned by conduct)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt standard)
People v. Dunkle, 36 Cal.4th 861 (California Faretta principles and waiver analysis)
People v. Ceja, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1071 (trial court authority to remove sanity issue when defendant fails to present sufficient evidence)
People v. Marshall, 15 Cal.4th 1 (Faretta timeliness and warning principles)