People v. Rahman CA3

Filed 9/29/21 P. v. Rahman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C092672

v. (Super. Ct. No. CR61397)

MOHAMMAD EASA RAHMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Mohammad Easa Rahman pleaded no contest to felony grand theft. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for three years. At a subsequent contested hearing on a violation of probation, the trial court found defendant in violation, revoked probation, and sentenced defendant to three years in prison. Defendant contends he was entitled to a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 when he sought to replace his public defender at the hearing on the probation violation. We conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY As defendant does not challenge the validity of the plea, we need only briefly state the facts leading to the conviction. On three occasions, defendant entered Kohl’s department store and took merchandise totaling $1,218.98 in value. As part of a conditional plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to a single count of felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) for a recommended grant of probation. In accordance with the recommendation, the trial court placed defendant on three years of formal probation. On two occasions, defendant admitted violations of probation for drug use. Each time, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve time in county jail and reinstated probation. Subsequently, the People filed a new probation violation petition, alleging several additional violations. This hearing was contested. The prosecution introduced evidence defendant tested positive for methamphetamine on three separate dates and admitted using drugs. After the prosecution indicated it had no more witnesses, defense counsel requested time to speak with defendant. Defense counsel then stated: “Not having gotten an answer to my question, I’m not going to tell the judge we rest our case. Client wishes to change his public defender if he can. [¶] This public defender is submitting the matter.” The trial court deemed the matter submitted, found defendant in violation of probation, and set the matter for sentencing. Defendant’s request to change public defenders was never mentioned. The trial court sentenced defendant to three years in prison and defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying him the opportunity to explain the basis for his Marsden request. The People concede error and join defendant’s request to remand the matter for a Marsden hearing.