People v. Obra CA3

Filed 7/1/14 P. v. Obra CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C072979

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF123847)

ROBERT SHERMAN OBRA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Robert Sherman Obra entered a no contest plea to infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant or former cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1 and admitted a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and two prior prison term allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) in exchange for a stipulated 10-year state prison sentence and the dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. After denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea/substitute counsel, the trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Defendant appeals, challenging the court’s

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

denial of his motion.2 We conclude defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea. As defendant did not request substitute counsel, the trial court’s duty under Marsden3 was not triggered. We affirm the judgment. FACTS On September 25, 2012, the victim and defendant had a conversation outside his home during which defendant became very angry. He then physically assaulted the victim by punching her in the left ear and chest, head-butted her nose, grabbed at her neck, pulling off her necklaces, and then tried to drag her into the garage, saying he was going to kill her. The victim provided photos of her injuries to the police. One photo showed a bleeding nose and blood on her shirt. Law enforcement officers found defendant at the address provided by the victim. A search of defendant’s car revealed 17.92 grams of marijuana, about half of which was packaged into separate baggies. DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion (which he labels a Marsden motion) after he demonstrated he entered his plea without knowing the contents of the victim’s new statement given to the prosecutor. We reject defendant’s contention. Background At sentencing on January 10, 2013, the trial court conducted a hearing on what it labeled a “modified hybrid Marsden motion” (defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel). During the hearing, defendant provided no