People v. Allen CA6

Filed 8/18/21 P. v. Allen CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H047429 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1881085)

v.

JOHN RANDALL ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant John Randall Allen pleaded no contest to rape (count 1; Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) and infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (count 2; Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). The trial court committed defendant to state prison for a total stipulated term of four years. Defendant timely appealed and obtained a certificate of probable cause. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 on behalf of defendant. We find no arguable issues and affirm the judgment. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 30, 2017, Santa Clara County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a report of a rape at Valley Medical Center. The victim reported she had been raped by defendant, who was her ex-boyfriend. The victim reported that defendant had arrived at her recreational vehicle trailer uninvited and approached her while she was lying in her bed. Defendant accused the victim of cheating on him. He got into the victim’s bed and straddled her, using his body weight to pin her down. He hit her on her head. Defendant

then pulled the victim’s pants down and penetrated her vagina with his hand. Shortly thereafter, he inserted his penis and proceeded to rape the victim for approximately five minutes. The victim’s 18-year-old autistic daughter was present at the scene. The victim was left with multiple bruises and lacerations. She was later examined by a Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) nurse, who determined that her injuries were consistent with her report that she had been raped. In January 2018, the Santa Clara District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with rape and infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant. A. First Motion to Replace Appointed Counsel Prior to the preliminary examination, defendant moved to replace appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). Defendant indicated he believed there was a conflict of interest and a lack of communication. Appointed counsel had been assigned to the case recently to replace the prior deputy public defender. Defendant stated that counsel had only visited him twice, did not bring notes of what had been discussed with prior counsel, and was unable to answer questions about a video and phone records that defendant wanted subpoenaed. Defendant felt that counsel was unprepared. Defendant also felt that counsel was not ready for the preliminary hearing, and he was upset he did not have an opportunity to make suggestions about the defense of his case. Counsel disagreed with defendant’s characterization of his preparation for the preliminary hearing. According to counsel, he met with defendant for approximately 1.5 hours during their first meeting. He intentionally left the case file at his office because he had already reviewed it. His intent at the first meeting was to “just . . . hear [defendant’s] version of events.” He had already subpoenaed and received the phone records about which defendant was concerned. Counsel stated that he had a second meeting with defendant, which also lasted approximately 1.5 hours, during which he again asked “for [defendant’s] version of events . . . I just wanted full context.” By then,