Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC788149
Mihara, J.
Defendant Daniel Hernandez Arreola sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s daughter. During a pretext telephone call, defendant admitted these offenses. He also sexually assaulted his three daughters and his girlfriend’s niece.
He was charged by second amended complaint with five counts of aggravated sexual assault on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 269), one count of rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)), eight counts of lewd conduct on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), two counts of forcible lewd conduct on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)), and two counts of lewd conduct on a child of 14 or 15 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1)). It was further alleged that he had committed some of the offenses against more than one victim (Pen. Code, § 667.61, subds. (b), (e)).
In June 2008, defendant asked the court to replace his appointed attorney. He asserted that his attorney was “not trying to help me” and that they disagreed about “things.” Defendant claimed that his attorney was “trying to force me to speak English.” Defendant’s trial counsel refuted these claims, and the court denied defendant’s request.
In September 2008, defendant waived his right to a preliminary examination and entered into a plea agreement under which he pleaded no contest to one count of aggravated sexual assault on a child under 14, two counts of forcible lewd conduct on a child under 14, three counts of lewd conduct on a child under 14, and one count of lewd conduct on a child of 14 or 15. In exchange, the remaining counts and the multiple victim allegations were dismissed, and the prosecutor agreed that defendant would be sentenced to a term of 15 years to life consecutive to a determinate term of 17 years and eight months.
The sentencing hearing was originally scheduled for October 24, 2008, but it was subsequently continued to December 19, 2008. Between the entry of his pleas and the sentencing hearing, defendant wrote a letter to the court seeking to withdraw his plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He attached an earlier letter in which he claimed that his trial counsel had only once met with him to discuss the charges. Defendant said he had “felt very pressured” to enter his plea. Defendant also submitted a written motion for substitution of counsel. Defendant asserted that his trial counsel had been unresponsive to his request to see him, and had told him that “he was going to make sure I spend the rest of my life in jail.”
At the December 19, 2008 sentencing hearing, the court held a Marsden hearing to address defendant’s requests. Defendant’s trial counsel responded to defendant’s assertions. He described how defendant had “expressed interest to me in receiving a deal.” When the prosecutor offered the plea agreement, defendant decided to accept it. Defendant’s trial counsel said he “did not pressure” defendant to accept the plea agreement. He maintained that he had been prepared to go forward and defend defendant “to the best of my ability.” Defendant was then allowed to respond. Defendant insisted that his trial counsel “was making fun of me” and telling him that he was never going to be released from prison. Defendant maintained that he wanted an attorney who would defend him against the charges. He asserted that the plea agreement was not beneficial to him even though he knew he faced a sentence of over 200 years. The trial court also allowed defendant to explain why he should be permitted to withdraw his plea. Defendant said: “The only thing I am asking of you is to give me the opportunity to have another public defender look into my case.” The trial court concluded that defendant’s trial counsel had provided defendant with effective assistance, and it denied his motion to substitute counsel.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).
The trial court proceeded to sentence defendant to the agreed term. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging only the post-plea proceedings.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P. J., McAdams, J.