People v. Washington CA3

Filed 8/31/16 P. v. Washington CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C078617

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14F00282)

v.

JAMES WASHINGTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant James Washington guilty of kidnapping and corporal injury to a spouse and the trial court sentenced him to 22 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to hold a confidential hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden), when defendant asked for a new attorney. The People agree the trial court erred but contend the error was harmless. We conclude the trial court committed prejudicial error in failing to hold a Marsden hearing and reverse the judgment accordingly.

1

I. BACKGROUND1 The People charged defendant with kidnapping, making criminal threats, and inflicting corporal injury on a spouse (domestic violence). The People further alleged defendant was previously convicted of a strike offense and a serious felony and previously served a term in prison. A jury later convicted defendant of kidnapping and domestic violence, and the trial court found true the enhancement allegations. Prior to sentencing, defendant asked the trial court for a continuance because he was considering moving for a new trial and wanted the reporter’s transcript of the trial. The trial court refused to continue the matter “for any significant period of time.” The court advised defendant, “It was a short trial. I don’t think that there were any issues, quite candidly.” The court nevertheless agreed to a brief continuance to allow defendant to discuss further with counsel “whether any grounds exist[ed] . . . which one can obtain a new trial.” The following exchange then took place: “THE DEFENDANT: If I was to file a motion for new trial under ineffective assistance of counsel, then would that be different? That’s what I was going for as well so— “THE COURT: In terms of ineffective assistance of counsel, your attorney, A, is an amazingly experienced attorney, who, B, didn’t have a whole lot to work with, other than cross-examination of witnesses who in some instances were law enforcement, and addressed those issues appropriately. And in some instances, with civilian witnesses with absolutely no prior knowledge of you . . . . [¶] “I’m not sure exactly what I anticipate an attorney should do with that sort of— faced with that sort of a factual scenario.