People v. Archie CA2/5

Filed 8/30/22 P. v. Archie CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B314427

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA091842-01) v.

GREGORY LAMONT ARCHIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathryn Solorzano, Judge. Affirmed. Lenore De Vita, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

Defendant was initially convicted of attempted murder and robbery at a trial in which his counsel had an undisclosed conflict of interest. When the conflict was discovered, defendant’s motion for new trial was granted, but his multiple motions to dismiss were denied, and his once-in-jeopardy plea was stricken. Defendant subsequently entered a no contest plea to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),1 with enhancements for the use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.7) and having sustained a prior strike (§ 1170.12). He now appeals. The trial court concluded that defendant’s initial counsel had been operating under a conflict because, at the time he represented defendant, he was also under investigation by the Los Angeles County District Attorney for Building Code and Zoning Code violations. After his representation of defendant terminated, the District Attorney filed a four-count misdemeanor complaint against the lawyer. The ultimate disposition of the charges against the lawyer is not indicated in the record in this appeal. The conflict was discovered shortly after defendant’s sentencing. The trial court recalled defendant’s sentence and sought briefing from both parties. Defendant requested a new trial and, in the alternative, moved to dismiss the prosecution due to his prior counsel having been conflicted. The trial court granted the new trial motion, and denied the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, defendant sought to pursue his once-in-jeopardy plea, arguing that the prosecution’s failure to disclose to the trial court