People v. Ross CA1/5

Filed 7/27/22 P. v. Ross CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A164324 v. ROBERT MELVIN ROSS III, (Sonoma County Super. Defendant and Appellant. Ct. No. SCR7462371)

Appellant Robert Ross (Appellant) appeals from the judgment following his no contest plea to a charge of felony removal or possession of a memento from human remains (Health & Saf. Code, § 7051.5, subd. (a)).1 Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm. BACKGROUND In September 2021, an information was filed charging Appellant with unlawful handling of human remains (§ 7052, subd. (a); count one); removal or possession of a memento from human remains (§ 7051.5, subd. (a); count

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.

1

two); and unauthorized entry of a dwelling house (Pen. Code, § 605.2, subd. (a); count three). The charges were based on evidence that Appellant had mishandled human remains while staying at an abandoned house. In October 2021, defense counsel requested a doctor be appointed to determine Appellant’s competency because Appellant sustained a head injury in a motor vehicle accident just before his arrest. In November, following receipt of the doctor’s report, both counsel stipulated to a finding of competency and the trial court so found. At the same hearing, Appellant asked to address the trial court about “something that is very important,” continuing, “[m]aybe you would like to understand this is a corrupt officer in my case.” The trial court referenced a pending offer to resolve the case and Appellant responded, “I understand that and I’m actually considering the offer, but I still want to reveal the corrupt officer.” The court proposed a break to provide Appellant and his attorney an opportunity to confer and defense counsel requested a confidential Marsden2 hearing to address Appellant’s request. The court said it did not sound like a Marsden issue and asked defense counsel to address whether a Marsden hearing was appropriate. Defense counsel responded that one situation where a Marsden hearing is appropriate is where there is “some type of breakdown in the attorney/client relationship over a disputed issue which is causing . . . the case not to go forward.” Counsel continued, “I do think if [Appellant] were able to address that with the Court, that’s going to involve attorney/client privileged information that’s not something that would be suitable in open court which is why I’m asking for the Marsden to facilitate that.”