People v. Wallravin

• Decision Date: 02 February 2022
• Docket Number: 2d Crim. B309292
• Citation: People v. Wallravin, 2d Crim. B309292 (Cal. App. Feb 02, 2022)
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ISODOR WALLRAVIN, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ISODOR WALLRAVIN, Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B309292

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

February 2, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Order Filed Date 2/17/22

Superior Court San Luis Obispo CountyNo. 19F-09029Jesse J Marino and Dodie A. Harman, Judges

The Law Office of John Derrick and John Derrick for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 2, 2022, be modified as follows:

1.On page 14, the first paragraph is modified to read:

The prosecutor asked, "Is the court finding there was an emergency under CalECPA?"^[1]The court declined to make a finding and responded, "I am not.So that's part of the unease that I sit with here, but I see them as different standards."It described Judge Harman's denial of the application as "the final word on that issue, at least until the Appellate Court reviews it."

2.On page 15, after the first full paragraph, the following paragraph is added:

The trial court here found "some element" of risk of death and great bodily injury, escape, and destruction of evidence.This satisfied both the Fourth Amendment's "exigent circumstances" standard, and the narrower CalECPA "emergency" standard.

There is no change in judgment.Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

TANGEMAN, J.

Michael Isodor Wallravin appeals from the judgment after the jury found him guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)^[2] and attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664/211) and found true allegations that he was previously convicted of a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) and two prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (d) & (e),1170.12 subds. (b) & (c)).The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life in state prison.

Wallravin contends the trial court erred when it: (1) failed to appoint two experts to examine his competence, (2) found he was competent without substantial evidence, (3) entered a not guilty plea on his behalf, (4) failed to suppress evidence of the location of his phone, and (5) failed to strike one of the strikes.He further contends that cumulative prejudice requires reversal.We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Bank robbery

One day at about 9:15 a.m., Wallravin and another person went into Pacific Premier Bank in Paso Robles.One wore a Halloween mask, one wore a hockey mask, and both wore gloves and carried guns.They yelled for everyone to get down.One pointed a handgun in the face of an employee, "[s]hoved [the employee's] shoulder with the barrel of the gun," and told him to get on the ground.

One robber pointed a gun at a teller and demanded money from her drawer and from the teller next to her.He said to not give him any "bait money" or "dye packs."She gave him $14, 488.He told her he knew her name and where she lived.

One of the robbers cocked his gun, put it in the face of the branch manager, and told her to unlock a teller's drawer.He told her, "I'm not F-ing around."She unlocked the drawer but it was empty.He told her to get money from the vault but the other robber yelled that "they had to go."

They took tellers' business cards, and as they ran out of the bank, they yelled that they knew where the tellers lived.They got into a car and drove away.

As a Paso Robles police officer approached the bank to respond to the robbery, someone jammed the police radio communications.The sheriff's department radio channel was also jammed.

Wallravin purchased the getaway car the day before the robbery.Minutes after the robbery, the car was found in an empty field.Surveillance video showed the car approaching the field, then a pickup truck registered to Mary Wallravin leaving the area.Inside the truck were radio scanners capable of interfering with radio communications of the police and sheriff's departments.

Bank surveillance photographs showed one suspect had a distinctive jaw line, wore a striped gray shirt with unbuttoned cuffs, and held a revolver with a distinctive six-inch barrel.When police located Wallravin, his jawline and shirt matched those in the photographs.After an officer asked Wallravin if he had a black revolver with a six-inch barrel, "his eyes got really big" and he tried to run away.He was carrying keys to the pickup truck and $5, 805 in cash, including "bait money" from the bank.

Two bank employees believed that one of the suspects had robbed the same branch two months earlier.They based their belief on his voice, build, walk, demeanor, and similarity of the masks and guns.

Competency proceedings and plea

Throughout the proceedings, Wallravin said he did not consent to the proceedings and demanded proof of the court's jurisdiction.At arraignment, he said he wanted to represent himself, but he refused to complete a Faretta^[3] waiver form.He said, "I intend to make a guilty plea."The court stated it was clear he would not participate in the proceedings and could not represent himself.The court appointed counsel over Wallravin's objection.

Appointed counsel, Bradley Cornelius, declared a doubt as to Wallravin's ability to assist in his defense.The court appointed forensic psychologist Kevin Perry, Ph.D., to examine him.Wallravin told the court, "I have no need for a doctor."

Dr. Perry's report, submitted in December 2019, stated that Wallravin refused to participate in an interview.The report stated that Wallravin "asked some relevant questions about [Dr. Perry] and the purpose of the interview.The statements he made were coherent and organized.There were no obvious signs of disorganization . . . .He did not appear to be responding to internal stimuli."Dr. Perry talked to custody staff and reviewed jail records, neither of which showed any psychiatric issues.Dr. Perry concluded he was unable to form an opinion regarding Wallravin's competency in the absence of an interview.

The trial court referred to Dr. Perry's report and stated its "inclination to say he's presumed competent . . . since we have no evidence otherwise."Defense counsel responded, "Submit on that, Your Honor."The court ruled that Wallravin was presumed competent and reinstated criminal proceedings.

Defense counsel said, "I think we need to enter not guilty pleas."Wallravin said he would not continue with the proceedings because his name was listed in all uppercase letters in the complaint.The court entered a not guilty plea on his behalf.Wallravin later told the court on several occasions that he had not entered a plea.

A series of attorneys declared conflicts and the court appointed other attorneys in their place.In response to a question by the court, one of these attorneys, Trace Milan, said he was satisfied that Wallravin was competent.

Another attorney, Harold Mesick, told the court that Wallravin refused to speak with him.Mesick expressed "a serious doubt as to Mr. Wallravin's competency."He based his belief on Wallravin's "conduct in court, his demeanor, his irrational behavior, his refusal to participate in his own defense."Mesick said Wallravin sent him a purported contract and then invoiced him and the deputy district attorney $4.5 million for alleged violations of the contract, and "tries to copyright his name."Mesick said Wallravin "doesn't truly comprehend his status."

Mesick described a motion Wallravin wrote that asserted the court had no jurisdiction based on pleading defects, and claimed the robbery of a federally insured bank must be prosecuted in federal court.Mesick said the motion "makes me question my . . . questioning of his competency because it's rather artfully written."But he nonetheless requested another evaluation.

The court stated that the concepts Wallravin presented were "illogical,""bonkers," and "bizarre."However, the court stated they were presented in "a coherent way," Wallravin was "intelligent and articulate," and the court did not see any "signs of mental illness."The court said that the conduct was "consistent with Mr. Wallravin being an adherent to certain political theories; sovereign citizens, constitutionalists," and did not necessarily "constitute[] mental illness."The court continued, "So, if I had to guess, you are just insisting on holding this world view, you are being obstinate about it, to this court's view, to your own disinterest."

The court asked if Wallravin wanted doctors appointed.He responded, "No, I don't need that.I need to be shown the jurisdiction."Nevertheless, the court again suspended criminal proceedings and appointed a second clinical

psychologist, Carolyn Murphy, Ph.D., to "rule out the possibility that mental illness is here."

Dr Murphy's report stated that Wallravin declined to participate in the evaluation.However, he was "fluent,""alert and fully oriented," and his writings were "advanced."He had "no known mental health history" and showed no signs of mood disturbance, thought disorganization, delusional ideation, mania, intellectual limitations, autism, or "any sort of mental health condition that would give rise to a finding of incompetence."The report concluded, "Without more information about his history and a full medical workup to rule out any underlying condition or conditions that could be affecting his functioning, this examiner simply cannot reach a conclusion as to his competence at this time."The report "suggested that counsel look into his background to see if there is any history of mental...