How has the court treated a motion to reduce a charge of assault to a simple assault with intent to pervert the course of justice?

Defendant was represented by counsel through trial and the filing of posttrial motions. After the filing of posttrial motions, defendant made an unequivocal request to represent himself. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.) Prior to permitting defendant to represent himself, the court advised defendant both orally and in writing of the perils of self-representation, and his right to counsel and determined that his choice was being made knowingly and intelligently.

The court properly acted within its discretion in denying the motion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, 17.) The court's ruling on the Romero (People v. Superior Court (Romero), supra, 13 Cal.4th 497) motion was patently not an abuse of discretion in view of defendant's extensive prior criminal record. There are no sentencing errors.

After a full review of the record, we find no arguable issues and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.

We concur:

Marchiano, P. J.

Stein, J.