Marsden2 motion in California

2023On September 25, 2023, Rogers filed a supplemental brief, in which he contends: 1) he was entitled to a resentencing evidentiary hearing in accordance with section 1172.6; and 2) he is entitled to a Marsden2 hearing to remove appellate counsel from further representing him on appeal and to appointment of 2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). 3 new counsel on appeal.

2023On September 25, 2023, Rogers filed a supplemental brief, in which he contends: 1) he was entitled to a resentencing evidentiary hearing in accordance with section 1172.6; and 2) he is entitled to a Marsden2 hearing to remove appellate counsel from further representing him on appeal and to appointment of 2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). 3 new counsel on appeal.

2016We affirm the judgment. 1 All statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 . 3 Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 . 2 BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 1.

2014During the hearing, appellant appeared to request the right of self-representation (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta)).

2026Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 , setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and identifying four potentially arguable issues: (1) whether substantial evidence supports the verdicts; (2) whether the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s Marsden2 motion; (3) whether the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s Romero3 motion; and (4) whether the court erred in finding section 654 inapplicable at sentencing.

2014Rios’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 .

2021Citing People v. Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80 , conflict counsel argued the court should conduct a Marsden hearing to evaluate “defendant’s assertions of incompetence of counsel.” The trial court determined that although People v. Sanchez was distinguishable, a Marsden hearing was necessary and would assist in determining whether there was a basis for the motion to withdraw the plea.

2021Citing People v. Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80 , conflict counsel argued the court should conduct a Marsden hearing to evaluate “defendant’s assertions of incompetence of counsel.” The trial court determined that although People v. Sanchez was distinguishable, a Marsden hearing was necessary and would assist in determining whether there was a basis for the motion to withdraw the plea.

2026(People v. Caravajal (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1487 .) Since no brief was filed, it is unclear what basis defendant intended to advance his appeal.

2026Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 , setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and identifying four potentially arguable issues: (1) whether substantial evidence supports the verdicts; (2) whether the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s Marsden2 motion; (3) whether the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s Romero3 motion; and (4) whether the court erred in finding section 654 inapplicable at sentencing.

2026(People v. Stubbs (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243, 245 [noting the purpose of section 1237.5 “is to weed out frivolous appeals by subjecting issues to screening at the superior court level”].) “In determining the applicability of section 1237.5, the crucial issue is what the defendant is challenging, not the time or manner in which the challenge is made.” (People v. Ribero (1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 63 .) There are certain limited challenges, such as a Marsden2 motion concerning matters arising after the plea is entered, that have been found not to implicate the validity of the plea agreement and thus do n

2015After the trial court denied defendant’s Marsden2 motion, defendant pleaded no contest pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595 , at pages 609-610, to using tear gas (§ 22810, subd. (g)(1)), and admitted having a prior strike conviction.

2015Code, § 6600 et seq. (the SVPA).)1 In a prior appeal, People v. Hill (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 646 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two], Hill contended that he had a due process right to the effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court violated that right by refusing to consider his Marsden2 motion to replace his court-appointed attorney.

2014On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying him the opportunity to be 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1 heard on a Marsden2 motion and in denying his motion to strike his strike pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).

2013In Molina the defendant made his continuance motion “in the midst of impaneling a jury.” (Molina, supra, 74 Cal.App.3d at p. 548 .) In the present case, any continuance motion was made while prospective jurors were en route to the courtroom.