People v. Delacruz CA5

Filed 5/10/22 P. v. Delacruz 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F083165 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Merced Super. Ct. v. No. 21CR-01662)

GONZALDO DELACRUZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Merced County. David W. Moranda, Judge. Stephanie L. Gunther, 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, Darren K. Indermill and Kari Ricci Mueller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

FACTS On April 30, 2021, the Merced County District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with one count of making criminal threats. (Pen. Code, § 422.)1 At a hearing on May 19, 2021, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency. The court suspended criminal proceedings pursuant to section 1368 and appointed a Dr. Zimmerman to evaluate defendant. Dr. Zimmerman prepared a report. Based on the report, the court declared defendant incompetent to stand trial on July 2, 2021. On July 20, 2021, defendant filed a written Marsden2 motion. A declaration attached to the motion appears to have been preprinted, with blanks where defendant’s name was handwritten. The declaration had several preprinted grounds for the Marsden motion, with a checkbox next to each. Defendant checked the boxes next to paragraphs indicating: counsel refused to confer with defendant concerning preparation of the defense; counsel failed to communicate with defendant; counsel failed to perform investigation(s) critical and necessary to the defense; counsel failed to file a motion critical to the defense; counsel failed to present evidence critical to the defense; and counsel failed to declare prejudice and/or conflict. In a handwritten attachment to the motion, defendant said he had told his attorney on May 19, 2021, that he wanted to invoke his right to a speedy trial. Yet, when court resumed that day, counsel “went against my interest stating to the judge PC1368 without perform[]ing an investigation or presenting evidence.” Counsel later told him that he would have gotten in trouble if he had invoked defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The handwritten attachment also stated that defendant had requested copies of all the minute orders in his case, and “a copy of my constitutional rights.” Yet, as of June 22, 2021, defendant had not received the requested items.