legal newsarticles
jobs
projectsbriefs
 
Home Link Directory Forum Gallery Cases Law BlogsOpportunities
 

P. v. Fordjour

P. v. Fordjour
02/17/06

P. v. Fordjour


Filed 2/9/06 P. v. Fordjour CA6


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS




California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977





IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA






SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT












THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


CHARLES PJARE FORDJOUR,


Defendant and Appellant.



H027293


(Santa Clara County


Super. Ct. No. 197498)



Defendant Charles Pjare Fordjour pleaded guilty to theft by false pretenses, but failed to appear at sentencing because the State of Arizona had taken him into custody on charges pending there. By the time he returned to California some five years later, the judge who initially took his plea in this matter had retired from the bench and was unavailable to impose sentence. Another judge therefore did so, sentencing defendant to the maximum term of three years. In the course of these renewed proceedings defendant stated in writing a desire to challenge the effectiveness of his attorney under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden), or to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). The trial court never conducted a hearing on those requests. We hold that the failure to conduct a hearing on the Marsden motion was error requiring conditional reversal, but that the sentencing by a judge other than the one who took the plea was not error under the circumstances shown here.


Background


It appears that in February 1996, defendant used another person's name and credentials to secure a technical position, for which he was not qualified, with Toshiba America Electronic Component, Inc. (Toshiba). Toshiba paid him a $3,000 hiring bonus as well as $9,096 in moving expenses he claimed to have incurred in transferring himself and his family from Arizona to California. After paying him another $10,048 in salary, Toshiba discharged him for absenteeism. Subsequent investigation revealed not only that defendant had applied under another person's name, but that his claim for moving expenses had been based upon falsified documents. In fact he had never moved to California, but had continued to reside in Arizona throughout the time he remained on Toshiba's payroll.


Based on these events, an information was filed on July 3, 1977, charging defendant with obtaining money by false pretenses in violation of Penal Code section 532. On July 7, 1977, defendant entered a plea of not guilty. He apparently remained free on $30,000 bail. He was represented by retained counsel, Benedict Koller.


On September 22, 1997, defendant changed his plea to guilty before Judge Edgar Taylor. The plea was made with â€





Description A criminal law decision on theft.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | Contacts | Submit New Article | Site Leaders | Search
    © 2005 Fearnotlaw.com