People v. Jordan CA3

Filed 5/15/14 P. v. Jordan CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C071329

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11F02924)

MARV JORDAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Marv Jordan of willfully threatening to commit a crime that would result in death or great bodily injury, and also convicted him of misdemeanor spousal battery. The trial court placed defendant on probation for five years and ordered him to serve 365 days in county jail.

1

Defendant now contends (1) his appointed counsel prior to trial rendered ineffective assistance, and (2) the trial court erred in granting defendant’s Faretta motion,1 in which defendant asked to represent himself at trial. Because defendant does not support his ineffective assistance claim with any meaningful argument on appeal, the claim is forfeited. In addition, because defendant asserted his claim of Faretta error for the first time in his reply brief, that claim is forfeited too. We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Our recitation of the background is limited to the circumstances relevant to the contentions on appeal. In April 2011, following an altercation with his wife, defendant was charged with willfully threatening to commit a crime that would result in death or great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 422 -- count one),2 and willfully and unlawfully inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition (§ 273.5, subd. (a) -- count two). The People further alleged that defendant personally used a firearm when he threatened the victim (§§ 1203.06, subd. (a)(1) & 12022.5, subd. (a)). On the date of defendant’s arraignment, the trial court appointed the public defender’s office to represent him. Shortly thereafter, defendant retained counsel (Roland Tiemann) and the public defender was relieved. A few months later, defendant retained a new attorney, Paris Coleman, and Tiemann was relieved. Then, in September 2011, nearly five months after defendant’s arraignment, Coleman was relieved as counsel and the public defender’s office was reappointed. Assistant Public Defender Thomas Clinkenbeard represented defendant at the preliminary hearing. Defendant was held to answer to the charges.