People v. Hall CA6

Filed 4/23/14 P. v. Hall CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H040000 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1244710)

v.

DOREMAN DAMAR HALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Doreman Damar Hall pleaded no contest to two counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a))1 and one count of buying, receiving, concealing, or withholding stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). He also admitted one prior strike conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and 1170.12. Prior to sentencing, Hall sought to withdraw his plea on the ground that he was misled and coerced by his attorney, as well as to replace that attorney. Following a combined Marsden2 and motion-to-withdraw hearing, the court denied Hall’s motions and sentenced him to a term of eight years. Hall appealed, challenging the validity of his plea. For the following reasons, we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This action arises out of four residential burglaries allegedly committed by Hall and another individual on July 4, 2012. Two of those burglaries took place in San Jose

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.

and the other two occurred in Fremont. Initially, Hall was charged in Santa Clara County Superior Court with the San Jose burglaries. That case was set for trial when the Alameda County District Attorney agreed to allow the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office to prosecute the Fremont burglaries as well. Accordingly, the initial case was dismissed so that all four burglaries could be tried in a single trial. A new felony complaint, charging Hall with four counts of first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), was filed on November 13, 2012. On January 28, 2013, a preliminary hearing was held at which Deputy Alternate Defender Jess Guy represented Hall. At the start of the hearing, Hall asked to represent himself because he had never met with Guy to discuss his case. The court initially denied Hall’s request because Guy represented that he had met with Hall previously and was prepared to move forward, civilian witnesses were present, and time had not been waived. However, after the first witness had been questioned but before she was excused, the court gave Hall the opportunity to question her himself. He refused, declining to represent himself as he had previously requested. By March of 2013, Ralph Benitez of the alternate defender’s office had been assigned to represent Hall. On March 20, 2013, the court held a Marsden hearing on Hall’s request to replace Benitez. At the hearing, Hall informed the court that he wanted new counsel because Benitez had refused to file a section 995 motion to dismiss the charges on the ground that Hall had been denied a substantial right--the right to represent himself--at the preliminary hearing. Hall further explained that he believed Benitez did not have his best interests at heart. Benitez responded that he had researched section 995 at Hall’s request and had agreed to file the motion, but that Hall had decided he wanted to represent himself before Benitez finished drafting the motion. Accordingly, Benitez said, he had stopped work on