People v. Murphy CA3
Filed 10/10/23 P. v. Murphy CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----
THE PEOPLE, C096868
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19CF01661)
v.
GARRETSON MATTHEW MURPHY,
Defendant and Appellant.
On December 22, 2020, defendant Garretson Matthew Murphy pled guilty to allowing a place for preparation or storing of a controlled substance and admitted that he was personally armed with a firearm in committing this offense. Nearly a year later, on December 14, 2021, defendant requested a continuance of sentencing to potentially bring a motion to withdraw the plea and find new counsel for that purpose. The court agreed to continue sentencing to January 25, 2022. But the trial court warned defendant not to wait until the last minute to come in with a new attorney and ask for another continuance. Four days before the hearing, on January 21, 2022, defendant filed a substitution of
1
counsel and moved for a continuance. At the January 25th hearing, a different attorney appeared for the substituted counsel and told the court that new counsel “wishes to be here in the next 60 days.” The trial court denied defendant’s request for substitution of counsel and motion for a continuance. The trial court sentenced defendant to two years’ probation. Defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s request for substitution of retained counsel and motion to continue his sentencing hearing. We disagree. Both the request and the motion were untimely. The judgment is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND An October 2018 search pursuant to a warrant of defendant’s property found 304 marijuana plants, 508.6 pounds of “ ‘drying’ ” marijuana, and 14.22 pounds of processed marijuana. Defendant had a .22-caliber revolver in his pocket loaded with three rounds of ammunition. On December 22, 2020, defendant pled guilty to allowing a place for preparation or storage of a controlled substance and admitted he was personally armed with a firearm. At defense counsel’s suggestion, the trial court set a sentencing hearing for February 23, 2021. On December 14, 2021, defendant appeared with retained defense counsel, Michael Rooney, who requested that sentencing be continued for defendant to evaluate whether to move to withdraw his guilty plea. Defense counsel expressed concern that defendant may not have understood the plea and its consequences given his mental health issues. Rooney further noted that he could not represent defendant in that respect—and had so informed defendant—because of an inherent conflict of interest. Rooney noted that defendant was consulting other attorneys. The prosecutor responded that there had already been multiple continuances, including for defendant to seek a mental health evaluation from Butte County Behavioral Health. However, the evaluation did not result in a recommendation defendant found
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)