P. v. Aceves
In defendants prior appeal, H030246, this court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to conduct an inquiry into defendants reasons for requesting substitute counsel. If defendant fails to establish that he is entitled to substitute counsel, the trial court should reinstate the judgment. If defendant carries his burden, the court should appoint substitute counsel.[1] Following issuance of the remittitur, the court held a Marsden hearing and denied defendants motion to substitute counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) Accordingly, the court reinstated the judgment and defendant appeals the [d]enial of Marsden hearing on December 20, 2007.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we have reviewed the entire record and defendants letter, and we have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) Therefore, Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Aceves