P. v. Perkins
Filed 8/11/06 P. v. Perkins CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RANDY ERICK PERKINS, Defendant and Respondent. | A109505 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 146838) |
Defendant Randy Erick Perkins seeks reversal of his convictions for spousal rape and penetration of spouse by a foreign object, contending that the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to discharge his retained attorney. We affirm his convictions.
BACKGROUND
Perkins was charged by information filed in Alameda County Superior Court on February 25, 2004, with spousal rape in violation of Penal Code section 262, subdivision (a)(1); forcible oral copulation of spouse in violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (c)(2); penetration by a foreign object of spouse in violation of Penal Code section 289, subdivision (a)(1); and false imprisonment by violence of spouse in violation of Penal Code section 236. It was also alleged that Perkins had three prior convictions, they being for a 1993 assault with a firearm, and both a 1993 and 1996 corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant/child's parent, and that he had served two prior prison terms. Perkins pled not guilty to all counts and denied the prior convictions.
On August 6, 2004, the court relieved Perkins's public defender and Perkins retained Melina Burns as his counsel. Burns appeared on Perkins's behalf on October 4 and 6, and December 6, 2004. On December 6, Perkins informed the court that he would not accept the prosecution's proposed plea agreement. The court indicated it was going to call in a jury panel and proceed to trial on December 8. Perkins did not raise any issue about Burns's representation of him, or his desire to discharge her, on this date.
Perkins's Efforts to Obtain Leave to Discharge His Counsel at the December 8, 2004 Hearing
On December 8, the trial court held a hearing with Perkins and his counsel, Burns, to consider Perkins's request that Burns be discharged. Perkins told the court that Burns did not think they could win, had not properly investigated the case, had not done certain things at his request, failed to visit him for any length of time at the jail, and wanted him to accept an unfair plea agreement.
The trial court indicated its disfavor with Perkins's request, noting, among other things, that the case was almost a year old and had been sent to trial court, that 75 to 80 potential jurors were waiting downstairs, and that this was the first time Perkins was raising any concerns about Burns. When Perkins complained that Burns had not brought him back into court two days before, on December 6, so that he could express his concerns, the court indicated that would have made no difference because he already had been in a trial court.
Perkins contends on appeal that he told the trial court that he also had talked to Burns about making a discharge motion before December 6 and was told that they should â€
