People v. Ernesto Angel Munoz
People v. Ernesto Angel Munoz
06:13:2006
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ERNESTO ANGEL MUNOZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
G034265 (Super. Ct. No. 02NF3540)
O P I N I O N
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg
L. Prickett, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Kristin A. Erickson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda L. Cartwright-Ladendorf and Annie Featherman Fraser, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975 (Ortiz), our Supreme Court held a criminal defendant has the right to relieve his retained attorney and have new counsel appointed without demonstrating his retained attorney is incompetent. The issue in this case is whether Ortiz applies when the defendant seeks to relieve his retained attorney and have new counsel appointed after the defendant has been convicted. We hold that in the circumstances of this case, it does. Because the trial court ruled otherwise, and because the record shows the defendant was entitled to have new counsel appointed under Ortiz, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
George Makary and his date were sitting in Makary's car when three men approached them. One of the men brandished a knife and demanded Makary give up his money and his car. When Makary refused, he stabbed him.
At trial, the primary issue was identification. Makary identified defendant as his assailant, but his date could not. In fact, she did not think defendant even resembled the stabber. The defense presented evidence suggesting the stabbing was actually committed by one of defendant's neighbors. However, the jury found otherwise and convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon, attempted carjacking and attempted robbery. It also found he used a deadly weapon and inflicted great bodily injury.
On June 2, 2004, 40 days after he was convicted and 9 before he was scheduled to be sentenced, Defendant claimed Bruce did not adequately investigate the case, failed to take his phone calls, and only visited him in jail one time, back in February 2003. Defendant wrote, â€
06:13:2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ERNESTO ANGEL MUNOZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
G034265 (Super. Ct. No. 02NF3540)
O P I N I O N
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg
L. Prickett, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Kristin A. Erickson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda L. Cartwright-Ladendorf and Annie Featherman Fraser, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975 (Ortiz), our Supreme Court held a criminal defendant has the right to relieve his retained attorney and have new counsel appointed without demonstrating his retained attorney is incompetent. The issue in this case is whether Ortiz applies when the defendant seeks to relieve his retained attorney and have new counsel appointed after the defendant has been convicted. We hold that in the circumstances of this case, it does. Because the trial court ruled otherwise, and because the record shows the defendant was entitled to have new counsel appointed under Ortiz, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
George Makary and his date were sitting in Makary's car when three men approached them. One of the men brandished a knife and demanded Makary give up his money and his car. When Makary refused, he stabbed him.
At trial, the primary issue was identification. Makary identified defendant as his assailant, but his date could not. In fact, she did not think defendant even resembled the stabber. The defense presented evidence suggesting the stabbing was actually committed by one of defendant's neighbors. However, the jury found otherwise and convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon, attempted carjacking and attempted robbery. It also found he used a deadly weapon and inflicted great bodily injury.
On June 2, 2004, 40 days after he was convicted and 9 before he was scheduled to be sentenced, Defendant claimed Bruce did not adequately investigate the case, failed to take his phone calls, and only visited him in jail one time, back in February 2003. Defendant wrote, â€
| Description | A decision regarding the defendant's motion to relieve his retained attorney is reversed and the matter is remanded to allow defendant to discharge his retained attorney. |
| Rating |
