People v. Moreno CA5

Filed 10/29/14 P. v. Moreno CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F067645 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF273755) v.

JORGE MORENO, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Valeriano Saucedo, Judge. Carol Foster and Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Criminal Complaint Appellant, Jorge Moreno, Jr., was charged on September 28, 2012, in a complaint with being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a), count 1),1 being a felon carrying a concealed firearm (§ 25400, subd. (c)(1), count 2), and being a felon carrying a loaded firearm (§ 25850, subd. (c)(1), count 3). The complaint alleged two prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and a prior serious felony conviction for discharging a firearm into an inhabited building, vehicle, or aircraft (§ 246) pursuant to the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). First Marsden Motion On October 12, 2012, the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). Appellant complained to the court that his counsel, Timothy Rote with the public defender’s office, told appellant that he was a bad attorney and appellant did not feel Rote was able to provide adequate representation. There was a plea offer for 13 months. Appellant wanted to make a counteroffer for less time. According to appellant, Rote said that deal would not work and he did not have time to go over appellant’s case. Rote had no recollection of some of the things stated by appellant. Rote said he never told appellant that Rote did not have enough time to talk to him. Rote stated he talked to appellant about the factual scenario of the stop of appellant by an officer and saw no problems with the stop. Rote explained to appellant that his strike offense was relatively recent and appellant was still on parole for that offense. The trial court did not find a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and denied the Marsden motion.