People v. Dearman CA3

Filed 9/15/21 P. v. Dearman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Colusa) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091422

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR603212)

v.

RYAN ALAN DEARMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

On the eve of trial, defendant Ryan Alan Dearman sought to substitute his public defender with private counsel and continue the trial date. The trial court rejected defendant’s request and the case proceeded to trial, where the jury found defendant guilty of dissuading a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(2); count I) and misdemeanor domestic battery (id., § 243, subd. (e)(1); count III). On appeal, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights to due process and counsel when it denied his request to substitute counsel and continue trial. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A detailed recitation of facts is not necessary to resolve the issue raised on appeal. It suffices to say that defendant argued with his girlfriend and grabbed her by the neck while she was driving. Following his arrest, he urged his girlfriend not to talk to the police and asked his mother to convince his girlfriend to retract her allegations. Defendant was arraigned on September 25, 2018. At the hearing, he indicated his intent to hire an attorney and the trial court granted him additional time to do so. On October 17, defendant again requested more time to engage a private attorney, which the court permitted. On November 7, defendant appeared with private counsel Atwal, and pleaded not guilty. The preliminary hearing was set for December 2018, but the trial court continued the date twice, first at Atwal’s request and next at the parties’ joint request. Defendant eventually waived his right to a preliminary hearing on May 15, 2019. On June 19, 2019, Atwal withdrew as defendant’s counsel and the trial court appointed Assistant Public Defender Albert Smith, continuing the hearing two weeks to allow Smith to review the case. On July 3, Smith asked for another continuance, which the trial court granted. On July 23, the court set trial for November 7, 2019. On October 1, 2019, the trial court held a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 on defendant’s request to substitute Smith with another public defender. Defendant asserted that Smith was not showing sufficient interest in his case and was unhappy that Smith advised him to plead guilty. The court denied the motion, finding there was not an irreconcilable conflict between them that would result in ineffective representation. Defendant then asked whether he could represent himself with an attorney on standby. The court instructed defendant to speak with his attorney before deciding to represent himself. Defendant did not raise the issue of self-representation with the trial court again.