State High Court Upholds Conviction OF SJ Man Who Didn't Appear At Trial

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA -- The California Supreme Court on Monday upheld the gun and drug possession conviction of a San Jose man who went through seven defense attorneys, then asked to represent himself and then didn't show up for his trial.

"The unusual circumstances of this case present a cautionary tale for defendants who choose to represent themselves," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote in the unanimous opinion issued in San Francisco.

"For in the end," Cantil-Sakauye continued, "defendant has no one but himself to blame for any failure to present a defense."

The court ruled in the case of Zeferino Espinoza, who was accused of possessing marijuana, morphine, other drugs, a shotgun, a loaded pistol and ammunition that police found in his room after he allegedly threatened to kill the man from whom he was renting the room in 2009.

After a 2012 Santa Clara County Superior Court trial in which Espinoza appeared only on the first day of testimony, a jury convicted him of several counts of drug possession and two counts of being an ex-felon in
possession of firearms.

Superior Court Judge Paul Bernal sentenced him to two years and eight months in prison.

During the two years and three months leading up to the trial, Espinoza was represented by seven court-appointed lawyers who made about 65 appearances on his behalf, but he either fired them or they stepped down because of difficulties in working with him.

During jury selection for the trial, Espinoza told the judge he wanted to exercise his right to act as his own lawyer. The judge granted the request, but warned he would not allow any further delays in the trial.
Espinoza appeared for the prosecution's opening statement and first witness the next day, but failed to show up for the remainder of the two-week trial.

In his appeal, Espinoza argued the judge should have refused his request for self-representation, delayed the trial or declared a mistrial.

But the state high court said Bernal acted reasonably in concluding that Espinoza's failure to appear "was a continuation of his efforts to manipulate the court and delay his criminal trial" and that further delay would be a hardship for jurors, witnesses and court processes.

"Defendant had worked his way through seven defense counsel over the course of nearly two and a half years before, at the last moment, deciding to proceed pro se and then, the next day, failing to appear,"
Cantil-Sakauye wrote.

"The court was not required to reward defendant's voluntary choice to absent himself by granting a mistrial," she said.

The high court overturned a decision in which a state appeals court in San Jose last year ordered a new trial for Espinoza.

• Also see: Search Is On For Suspected Kidnapping Victim, 57, From Vallejo; 4 Arrested, But Not Talking

--Bay City News/Shutterstock image