People v. Ruelas CA5

Filed 10/28/15 P. v. Ruelas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F069046 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F13907468) v.

MANUEL ERNESTO RUELAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alan M. Simpson, Judge. Gabriel C. Vivas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Wanda Hill Rouzan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

Defendant Manuel Ernesto Ruelas was convicted by no contest plea of felony evading a police officer with willful disregard (Pen. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in failing to hold a Marsden1 hearing to determine the basis of his complaints about defense counsel. He argues we should remand for a Marsden hearing. We affirm. BACKGROUND On November 19, 2013, defendant filled out, initialed, and signed a plea form. He wrote: “Admit prior strike and prison priors[.] Ct ind 5 year lid.” And he noted that the maximum sentence he could receive as a result of his plea was 11 years in prison. On January 13, 2013, in preparation for the sentencing hearing, the probation officer prepared his report and recommendations. The report noted that defendant pled no contest to felony evading an officer, and he admitted one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). As for the plea agreement, the report stated the “Court indicated Five Year Lid.” The report detailed defendant’s criminal history, which began in 1992, and noted that he was on active parole when he committed the instant offense and that his base term should be doubled due to the prior strike conviction and one year should be added for each of his five prior prison terms. Under the heading of “Other Significant Information,” the probation officer wrote:

“The defendant … is statutorily ineligible for probation pursuant to PC 667(c)(2)/1170.12(a)(2). He is before the Court for his sixth felony conviction. In the instant offense, he led officers on a vehicle chase through residential neighborhoods.