P. v. Charles





Filed 3/8/11 P. v. Charles CA5







NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS


California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT DONALD CHARLES, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

F058305 (Super. Ct. No. CRF23362) OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Eleanor Provost, Judge.
William A. Malloy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Charles A. French and Janine R. Busch, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
This is appellant Robert Donald Charles, Jr.'s second appeal from the judgment. A jury convicted appellant of two counts of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code,^[1] § 459; counts 1 & 3) and one count of theft from an elder or dependent adult (§ 368, subd. (d); count 4), and acquitted him of a number of other counts. The trial court sentenced appellant to a total prison term of 14 years 8 months. In appellant's first appeal (People v. Charles (Feb. 24, 2009, F053534) [nonpub. opn.]),^[2] this court reversed appellant's burglary conviction on count 3, and remanded the matter with instructions to the trial court to hold a new hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). Following remand, the trial court held a Marsden hearing. After finding the attorney-client relationship had irreparably broken down, the court relieved defense counsel and appointed substitute counsel. Appellant's new counsel filed a motion for a new trial. After hearing and denying the motion for a new trial, the court reinstated the judgment, striking appellant's conviction and sentence on count 3, which resulted in a total prison term of 12 years. In his second appeal, appellant raises a number of claims challenging the trial court's handling of the proceedings on remand. He also claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his new trial motion. We affirm.
DISCUSSION^[3]
I. The Trial Court Properly Followed Our Directions on Remand.
We begin by addressing the argument appellant makes in his supplemental opening brief. Specifically, appellant argues that the judgment is void and he is entitled to a new Marsden hearing because the trial court failed to give him a full opportunity to state his reasons for desiring new counsel as directed by our prior opinion.
â€