People v. Rios CA5

California Court of Appeal Jan 27, 2022 No. F082132Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's post-plea Marsden motion, as the court conducted an adequate inquiry and the record supported the conclusion that counsel provided effective assistance. Furthermore, any potential error was harmless because the defendant did not seek to withdraw his plea and the court lacked discretion to deviate from the stipulated sentence.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the defendant's post-plea Marsden motion?
Was the trial court's inquiry into the defendant's complaints regarding his counsel sufficient?
Was any error in the denial of the Marsden motion harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court thoroughly inquired regarding the details of defendant’s complaints and defendant’s counsel responded on each issue.”

“Defendant’s counsel was not ineffective nor did a conflict exist between defendant and his counsel such that she could not continue to effectively represent him.”

“Any error in granting defendant’s Marsden motion was therefore harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Filed 1/27/22 P. v. Rios CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F082132 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F19903136) v.

ROY RIOS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Houry A. Sanderson, Judge. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Clara M. Levers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.

Defendant Roy Rios pled no contest pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement to assault with a deadly weapon and admitted a great bodily injury enhancement. On the date of sentencing, defendant moved the court to appoint new counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. The trial court denied his Marsden motion. On appeal, defendant contends that the denial of his Marsden motion was reversible error. The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On November 19, 2019, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with attempted murder1 (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664;2 count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2). As to count 2, the information alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). On August 20, 2020, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 2 and admitted the great bodily injury enhancement. The plea agreement included a stipulated seven-year term of imprisonment on count 2. In exchange for his plea, the trial court dismissed count 1 on the People’s motion. On October 29, 2020, defendant requested appointment of new counsel. After conducting a closed hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s request. On the same date, the trial court imposed the stipulated sentence of seven years as follows: on count 2, four years (the upper term) plus a three-year great bodily injury enhancement. On December 7, 2020, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

People v. Rios CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief