P. v. Rawlinson
Filed 9/7/06 P. v. Rawlinson CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUSSELL GREGORY RAWLINSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
C049587
(Super. Ct. No. 04F03839)
|
A jury found defendant Russell Rawlinson guilty of identity theft, second degree burglary, and forgery. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury with CALJIC No. 4.35; (2) his motion for substitute counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (hereafter Marsden)) should have been granted; (3) the court violated his right to due process when it refused to grant a continuance to permit another attorney to investigate and prepare a motion of new trial; and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We shall affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Jeff Borders is the owner of Borders Consulting. Sometime in late February or early March 2004, someone stole his business checks and tax records from his storage unit.
On March 21, 2004, defendant and codefendant Gregory Meade cashed three $75 checks at California Check Cashing on an account belonging to Borders Consulting. Defendant cashed one check, while Meade cashed the other two. The men used their own identification and endorsed the checks with their own signatures.
On the same day, a woman checked into a room at the Wingate Inn under the name Sara Russell. The real Russell had lost her purse six months earlier and is not the person who checked into the hotel. The next day, a man claiming to be Russell's boyfriend paid for another night, and the manager, Mark Fitzgerald, moved the reservation to room 314. Thereafter, Fitzgerald went to room 232 to see if the occupants had moved to room 314. When he opened the door, he observed a woman, later identified as Michele Martinie, working on a computer on what appeared to be a payroll check. Martinie advised Fitzgerald that she was waiting to move to room 314. About an hour later, he returned to room 232 and Martinie was still there working on another check.
Fitzgerald saw about eight people going in and out of room 232 during the day, each person staying a short time. Defendant was one of them. Fitzgerald observed defendant moving items from room 232 to room 314. Because the hotel had received a counterfeit $20 bill earlier that day and Fitzgerald had been advised to â€
