People v. Jay CA6

Filed 1/7/26 P. v. Jay CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H052373 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C2306925)

v.

RICHARD JAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Richard Jay pleaded no contest to various counts involving physical abuse against a woman with whom he had been in a dating relationship. The trial court sentenced Jay to a total term of nine years four months after denying his request to dismiss a prior strike conviction. Jay contends the trial court erred by denying his motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) to replace his appointed counsel. We disagree and will affirm the judgment. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Between March and May 2023, police repeatedly responded to reports that Jay committed various acts of physical abuse against a woman. The woman alleged Jay’s

acts included striking her in the face, repeatedly choking and suffocating her, and threatening to kill her. Jay pleaded no contest to all eight counts alleged in the information: two counts of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a); counts 1, 6)1; four counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); counts 2, 3, 5, 7); false imprisonment (§ 236; count 4); and inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, cohabitant, former spouse, or former cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 8). Jay admitted four aggravating circumstances regarding these counts (§ 1170, subd. (b)), and he admitted he had sustained a prior strike conviction (§§ 667.5, subd. (c), 1192.7, subd. (c)). Jay’s pleas were not entered pursuant to a plea agreement; he pleaded no contest and made his admissions without any agreement as to what sentence would be imposed. Before accepting Jay’s pleas, the trial court discussed plea negotiations that had taken place and Jay’s reasons for entering his pleas. The trial court noted Jay entered his pleas with “no promises made and no indication at this point of what the likely sentence would be.” The trial court recounted its understanding that the prosecution had offered a plea agreement containing a maximum sentence of either four or six years in prison that would allow Jay to file a Romero2 motion for the court to dismiss his prior strike enhancement at sentencing. The trial court stated it believed this was “a good way to resolve this case,” but Jay had communicated it was “important” to him “to get out of custody” and to “try and demonstrate to the Court that [he had] actually changed” and no longer posed a threat. Jay confirmed he wanted an opportunity to be released and to