People v. Marion CA3

Filed 4/29/25 P. v. Marion CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101071

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE001279)

v.

DARRELL MARION,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Darrell Marion has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We will modify the judgment to correct the custody credits the trial court orally pronounced and affirm.

1

I. BACKGROUND The second amended information charged defendant with attempted murder, torture, aggravated mayhem, assault with a deadly weapon, criminal threats and domestic violence of Doe.1 (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a), 205, 206, 245, subd. (a)(1), 422 & 273.5, subd. (a).)2 As to the charges of attempted murder, assault, and domestic violence, the information alleged defendant inflicted great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e).) As to all counts, the information further alleged defendant used a deadly weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).)3 Early in the case, counsel questioned defendant’s competency and entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Two separate psychiatrists found defendant was aware of his conduct at the time of the allegations of this case. Two additional claims concerning defendant’s competency were raised while the case was pending. In the first of these claims, the trial court declared defendant to be competent after receiving two psychiatrist’s reports opining defendant was competent. In the most recent examination in 2023, the psychiatrist reported defendant was competent. Once again, the trial court found defendant to be competent to stand trial. At trial, the court again reviewed the evaluations and found them to be extremely thorough and well done, and concurred with defense counsel’s belief that defendant was competent. Doe was defendant’s girlfriend for 11 years. Around 2015 or 2016, their relationship deteriorated, and defendant started accusing Doe of “cheating with everybody at the job.”