P. v. Thomas CA6

Filed 7/11/13 P. v. Thomas CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H038282 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS112254)

v.

ROBERT RUFUS THOMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Robert Rufus Thomas appeals from a conviction of attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant contends that he informed the trial court that he desired substitution of counsel, and that the trial court therefore erred in failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). We conclude that a Marsden hearing was not required, and we accordingly will affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 An information charged defendant with attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a)). The information alleged that defendant had personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)) and had served two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).

1 The facts of the case are not relevant to the issue presented on appeal.

Following the close of evidence at defendant’s jury trial, the prosecutor amended the information to add a charge of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and a great bodily injury allegation (Pen. Code, § 12022.7). The jury acquitted defendant of attempted murder, but it convicted him of the lesser-included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, §§ 664/192, subd. (a)). The jury convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon, and it found true the allegations that defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon, personally inflicted great bodily injury, and had served two prior prison terms. The trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison. Following the sentencing hearing, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Defendant argues that, because his postverdict “statements to the trial court expressed his clear dissatisfaction with trial counsel and clearly indicated he wanted substitute counsel,” the trial court erred in failing to hold a Marsden hearing. Defendant thus urges us to remand the case to the trial court for a Mardsen hearing. We conclude that there was no clear indication that defendant wanted a substitute attorney, and that the trial court therefore was not required to hold a Marsden hearing. Background After the jury returned the verdicts, the following colloquy occurred: “THE COURT: April 4th, 2012, 8:45 in the morning, for sentencing. [¶] We’ll see you back on that date and at that time. “DEFENDANT THOMAS: I just want to say I believe this was a set up. I believe everything was just, um, coached. I believe that, uh, that, um, the decision making was more enforced by leading and pleading than the righteous choice. [¶] And I believe that, uh, you know, I was treated unfairly in that way. And also, uh, manipulated and told one thing and other things happened. And—