Opinion
E083295
08-05-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RASHAD LAMAR KING, Defendant and Appellant.
James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FSB23002809, Rodney A. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed.
James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
Defendant and appellant Rashad Lamar King pled no contest to second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211, count 1.) Defendant additionally admitted he suffered two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and one prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) &667, subds. (b)-(i)). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to 20 years of imprisonment.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Counsel 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 two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the court abused its discretion by denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea; and (2) whether the court erred in denying defendant's Marsden motion.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
Appellate counsel does not identify which of, or whether both of, defendant's two Marsden motions the court potentially erred in denying.
We offered defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The parties stipulated the preliminary hearing would provide the factual basis for the plea.
On August 18, 2023, defendant and two other men, at least one of whom was armed with a semiautomatic handgun, robbed a cashier at gunpoint. An officer pursued the vehicle in which the suspects fled. The pursuing officer activated his "emergency lights and sirens to stop the car." The vehicle continued, speeding and making several turns onto different residential streets until it crashed.
Defendant and the other two suspects fled the scene of the crash. Another officer apprehended defendant shortly thereafter. Inside the vehicle, an officer found a handgun with a drum-style magazine and documents addressed to defendant.
By complaint filed August 22, 2023, the People charged defendant with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211, count 1) and evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 2). The People additionally alleged that in the commission of the robbery, a principal was personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)), and that defendant had suffered two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) &667, subds. (b)-(i)).
On October 6, 2023, the court held a Marsden hearing at which defendant complained, "That pretty much there's information that's available, and my family has been trying to reach my attorney to no avail, and there's people that's coming-that's trying to exonerate me that has information, and they haven't been able to get ahold of him at all, so they're telling me, like, 'Don't even have him as an attorney [any] more.'" "[W]e'll call the Public Defender's office, and they're saying that he's in court, and then . . . he's never available." "So it's impossible for anybody to get ahold of him."
Defense counsel responded that no one had attempted to contact him by email. He noted that if there were any potential witnesses, he would not speak with them directly but would have his investigator contact them. The court denied defendant's request to dismiss his attorney; the court found that the case was in the early stages and counsel had conveyed to defendant how potential witnesses could reach out to counsel.
On November 20, 2023, defendant pled no contest to second degree robbery. Defendant additionally admitted he suffered two prior serious felony convictions and one prior strike conviction.
On December 18, 2023, defendant personally filed a motion to withdraw his plea alleging he was under severe duress when he entered his plea. Defendant also filed a motion for a second Marsden hearing alleging his counsel had rendered prejudicially ineffective assistance by failing to interview pertinent witnesses.
On December 20, 2023, the court held the second Marsden hearing. Defense counsel noted that he had attempted to speak with some of the individuals identified by defendant as potential witnesses, but they refused to speak with him or his representatives. The court denied defendant's request for new counsel.
Defense counsel also noted that defendant had a motion to withdraw the plea pending: "And so I think it would be appropriate for the Court to rule on that motion at this time. I don't think we should leave anything unresolved."
The court queried defense counsel about the basis for that motion. Defense counsel responded, "After review of the file, discussion with [defendant], and an analysis of any potential legal grounds for a motion to withdraw a plea, I cannot find any to advance to the Court at this time." The court denied defendant's motion to withdraw the plea.
Defendant then orally moved to represent himself, which the court denied. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 20 years and dismissed the remaining count and allegations.
II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MILLER, J., MENETREZ, J.