People v. Villarreal CA3

Filed 1/25/23 P. v. Villarreal CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C094976

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR62599)

v.

ERIC VILLARREAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Eric Villarreal guilty of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and found true a great bodily injury enhancement. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found the allegation that defendant had suffered a prior serious felony conviction true. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 11 years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motions for the appointment of substitute counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. Finding no abuse of discretion, we will affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND The substantive facts underlying defendant’s conviction are immaterial to the issue on appeal and are therefore not recounted here. On December 31, 2020, the day after the People filed a felony complaint alleging that defendant had committed an assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4))1 and made criminal threats (§ 422), defense counsel was appointed, and defendant was advised of the charges against him. On January 4, 2021, defendant pled not guilty. The matter was set for a preliminary hearing one week later, on January 11, 2021. At the preliminary hearing, defense counsel requested a continuance, as he was not prepared to proceed. Defendant was released on bail prior to defense counsel’s attempt to visit him in jail, and had not contacted counsel; thus, counsel and defendant had not had the opportunity to meet. Counsel also noted their sole conversation had been “a little emotionally charged.” Defendant indicated he wanted to speak with counsel, wanted to see what was included in discovery, and wanted to make a Marsden motion to replace his attorney. At his Marsden hearing, defendant stated his reasons for wanting to replace his attorney: “Just before the first time when I came to court before arraignment, I came to speak to him. He gave me about a ten-second introduction and then stopped it. He says, Do you want me to call the bailiff? You want me to call the bailiff? I was like -- okay, now, I am feeling like I have no relationship or able to communicate with my lawyer now, because he wants to do what he wants to do, and that’s on my behalf. And it scared me Your Honor. [¶] Right now I’ve talked to him. He goes, You’re getting -- standing too close to me. You’re standing too close to -- um, I don’t want to -- I just want to look