P. v. Hurndon
Filed 7/13/06 P. v. Hurndon CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. CHAD HURNDON, Defendant and Appellant. |
F048520
(Super. Ct. No. VCF118652-03)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Valeriano Saucedo, Judge.
Robert L.S. Angres, 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, Kathleen A. McKenna and Connie A. Proctor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Procedural History of Prior Appeal No. F045284
On December 17, 2003, the Tulare County District Attorney filed an information in superior court charging appellant Chad Hurndon with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), a serious felony (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)) with personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)).
On December 23, 2003, appellant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty to the substantive count, and denied the special allegation. On February 19, 2004, jury trial commenced.
On February 24, 2004, the jury returned verdicts finding appellant guilty of the substantive count and finding the special allegation to be true.
On March 9, 2004, appellant filed a motion for new trial on the ground that defense counsel was ineffective by failing to call percipient witnesses to the charged offense.
On March 17, 2004, appellant filed a letter in support of his new trial motion and noted that defense counsel refused to move for a mistrial after a prosecution witness conversed with a juror during the course of his trial.
On March 24, 2004, the court denied appellant's motion for new trial and sentenced him to a total term of 13 years in state prison with 158 days of accrued custody credits.
On April 9, 2004, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
On December 2, 2004, this court filed a nonpublished per curiam opinion reversing the judgment of conviction. We noted the trial court erred by failing to conduct a hearing under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) when â€
