P. v. Morris
Filed 5/9/06 P. v. Morris CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHAWN JASON MORRIS, Defendant and Appellant. | F046664 (Super. Ct. No. VCF119051)
O P I N I O N |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Darryl Ferguson, Judge.
Danalynn Pritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Kathleen A. McKenna, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Shawn Jason Morris pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale. On appeal, we conclude appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings, and therefore we will reverse and remand for the limited purpose of allowing appellant to obtain counsel to evaluate and possibly present a motion to withdraw appellant's no contest plea.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 10, 2003, a police officer executed a search warrant at appellant's home. The officer discovered approximately 9.78 grams of methamphetamine, plastic baggies, a gram digital scale, and pay-owe ledgers. Appellant admitted to the officer that the items belonged to him. The officer believed appellant possessed the drugs for the purpose of sale.
On March 8, 2004,[1] appellant was charged with one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) The information further alleged that appellant suffered one prior conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c) and two prior felony convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (e)(4).
Appellant's arraignment was originally set for April 7, 2004, but appellant requested a continuance to retain counsel. At the arraignment hearing on April 21, the court asked appellant if he had retained counsel. He said he had not, but he was close to having the funds to do so. The court then appointed the public defender to represent appellant. Appellant pled not guilty and a pretrial conference was set for July 14.
At the July 14 hearing, appellant appeared with retained counsel, Mr. Paden, who had substituted in for the public defender. Jury trial was continued to July 27.
On July 27, however, appellant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of no contest in exchange for dismissal of the prior conviction allegations. He was still represented by Mr. Paden.
At the sentencing hearing on September 30, appellant appeared without an attorney, and the following discussion occurred:
â€
