People v. Herina CA3

Filed 8/9/16 P. v. Herina CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C078762

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM041759)

v.

CHRISTOPHER FRANCIS HERINA,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal arises out of convictions in two separate cases. In case No. CM041759, defendant Christopher Francis Herina pleaded no contest to leaving the scene of an injury accident.1 (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a).) In case No. SCR-100898,

1 In case No. SCR-100009, defendant was charged with petty theft in violation of Penal Code sections 484, 488, 490.5. Pursuant to the negotiated disposition of case No. CM041459, this matter was dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

1

defendant pleaded guilty to willful infliction of corporal injury upon a girlfriend. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).) He was sentenced together on both cases. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for a term of 36 months with various terms and conditions, including 120 days in county jail. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to hold a Marsden2 hearing in case No. CM041759 after he indicated such a hearing was necessary based on ineffective assistance of counsel and/or breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Defendant further contends the trial court erred by failing to provide a detailed breakdown of all the fines, fees, and penalties imposed upon him. The People concede the points, and we agree. We reverse the judgment and remand the matter with directions. DISCUSSION In light of the limited issues raised on appeal, we dispense with a recitation of the underlying facts as they are irrelevant to the resolution of this appeal. A. Marsden Hearing Defendant assserts reversal is required because the trial court failed to conduct a Marsden hearing prior to sentencing. We agree. “[A] trial court must conduct . . . a Marsden hearing only when there is at least some clear indication by the defendant, either personally or through counsel, that defendant wants a substitute attorney. . . . [I]f a defendant requests substitute counsel and makes a showing during a Marsden hearing that the right to counsel has been substantially impaired, substitute counsel must be appointed as attorney of record for all