The People v. Dunbar CA3

Filed 9/11/13 P. v. Dunbar CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta)

THE PEOPLE, C073055

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F1534)

v.

ANTHONY LAMAR DUNBAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Anthony Lamar Dunbar pleaded no contest to spousal abuse and admitted he inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. Prior to sentencing, defendant made a Marsden1 motion and sought to withdraw his plea. The trial court denied the motion to substitute counsel and defendant appeals this ruling. We affirm.

1 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).

1

BACKGROUND2 Defendant and his girlfriend, April Wilson, had been living together for about a year. One morning they were arguing and defendant hit Wilson, grabbed her by the throat and began to strangle her. Defendant threatened to kill her. Wilson lapsed into unconsciousness. When she revived, defendant told her she had had a seizure. Wilson sustained damage to her voice box, was unable to eat solid food for almost three weeks and suffered temporary hearing loss. An information charged defendant with attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)),3 battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)), spousal abuse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), false imprisonment by force (§§ 236, 237) and two counts of dissuading a witness by force (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)). As to the spousal abuse charge, the information also alleged that defendant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). Defendant pleaded no contest to spousal abuse and admitted the allegation he inflicted great bodily injury on the victim, in exchange for a stipulated term of seven years in state prison. The parties also agreed the remaining counts would be dismissed. At the sentencing hearing, defendant indicated he wanted to withdraw his plea. Counsel did not believe there was a basis for withdrawing the plea, absent a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the court held a Marsden hearing. Defendant claimed counsel was ineffective and he should be allowed to withdraw his plea as: (1) he was unaware he was pleading to a strike; (2) he thought he would be serving less time than the agreed term; and, (3) he did not inflict great bodily injury on the victim, rather she had a seizure which caused her injuries. Defendant also said he had