People v. Geeting CA3

Filed 3/3/16 P. v. Geeting CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079512

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM041811)

v.

LESTER MARK GEETING,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Lester Mark Geeting has asked us to review his conviction pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378 – count 1), possession for sale of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351 – count 2), possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 29800,

1

subd. (a)(1) – count 3),1 misdemeanor possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a) – count 4), and misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a) – count 5). The complaint alleged that, as to counts 1 and 2, defendant had sustained a prior controlled substance conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code, section 11370.2, subdivision (a). The complaint further alleged that, as to all counts, defendant suffered three prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), and a prior strike conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (j). On the eve of trial, defendant made a verbal Marsden motion objecting to certain aspects of his legal representation. At the hearing, he clarified that he would “stipulate I will accept the attorney, but I am hoping that per the language [in] Marsden, admonish my attorney to complete a few pertinent tasks.” The trial court denied the motion. Defendant made a subsequent Marsden motion seeking to replace his attorney. After holding a hearing, the court denied that motion as well. Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted the prior strike in exchange for a dismissal with a Harvey2 waiver of the balance of charges and allegations against him. The parties stipulated that the factual basis was as stated in the probation report. The report recited that Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force agents had received information that defendant, who was on post release supervision and subject to warrantless search, was involved with narcotics trafficking and use, was living at a home that was not his registered address, and was in possession of a firearm. Based on that information, agents conducted a search of the home where they found and detained a