People v. Requejo CA5

Filed 11/23/15 P. v. Requejo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F069053 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF279258) v.

ALEXIS MICHAEL REQUEJO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Brett R. Alldredge, Judge. Conness A. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and John G. McLean, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

-ooOoo- INTRODUCTION On January 16, 2014, a jury found defendant guilty of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)), and one count of possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1)). In a separate proceeding, the trial court found allegations that defendant had been imprisoned on three occasions for felony convictions and on each occasion had failed to stay out of custody for a period of five years to be true, and subsequently sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of five years in prison. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a Marsden1 hearing after defendant voiced displeasure with his trial counsel’s performance. We affirm. FACTS On February 8, 2013, police found defendant, a convicted felon, inside a hotel room containing a sawed-off shotgun and 15 shotgun shells. As a result of these events, an amended information was filed charging defendant with unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. The information also alleged a number of prior felony convictions. A jury found defendant guilty of the unlawful possession charges and, in a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found the prior conviction allegations to be true. Following the bench trial on his prior convictions, defendant informed the court that defense counsel had never visited him in jail, had rescheduled all of their meetings while defendant was out on bail, and did not ask defendant to outline his version of the events in question until the day jury selection began. Defendant stated he felt “railroaded” and that he would have been “better off pro per.” During these allegations,