People v. Garza CA2/6

Filed 3/17/25 P. v. Garza CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B332122 (Super. Ct. No. 2016019312) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JAIME GARZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jaime Garza appeals from the judgment after he pleaded guilty to felony oral copulation with the use of an intoxicant or controlled substance (Pen. Code,1 former § 288a, subd. (i)) and misdemeanor sexual battery (§ 243.4, subd. (e)(1)), and admitted that he had suffered 18 prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court struck 17 of the prior strikes (see People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 529-530) and sentenced him to 12 years in state prison. Garza contends the judgment should be conditionally

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

reversed because the court erroneously denied his motion to substitute appointed counsel (see People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123-126 (Marsden)). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY After pleading guilty to oral copulation and sexual battery charges and admitting 18 prior strike allegations, Garza moved to substitute appointed counsel pursuant to Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at pages 123 to 126. Judge Bruce Young granted Garza’s request for a Marsden hearing, which was held before Judge Catherine Voelker. At that hearing Garza said that he wanted to withdraw his plea. He explained that he had long “wanted to go to trial” because he believed “there was more evidence that could . . . be submitted.” He claimed that when he signed the plea agreement he “didn’t know what [he] was doing,” was on “anxiety meds” and “psyche meds,” “wasn’t in [his] right mind,” and was “stressed” and “lost.” His appointed counsel refused to submit medical documents to the trial court, however. She also refused to move to withdraw Garza’s plea because she purportedly believed that “everything was right on point.” The refusal to do so created a conflict of interest. Garza’s appointed counsel responded that she felt “comfortable” with Garza when they went over the plea offer. He appeared mentally competent, “articulate,” and “intelligent.” Appointed counsel told Garza that, in her experience, it was “very difficult to find a judge [who] would be willing to strike 17 strike priors.” But Judge Young was willing to do so, which would “take [Garza] out of the 25 to life range” and make him eligible for a middle-term sentence. The judge assigned to