P. v. Sutton
Michael Howard Sutton (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his conviction of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459) with admissions that he had a prior serious felony conviction that also qualified him for sentencing pursuant to the Three Strikes law ( 667, 1170.12) and that he had served separate prison terms after three prior felony convictions ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 13 years in state prison, consisting of a doubled middle term of four years, or eight years, for the burglary and a consecutive five year term for the prior serious felony conviction. After examination of the record, counsel filed an Appellants Opening Brief in which no issues were raised.On April 6, 2007, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. Defendant was granted an extension to June 6, 2007, to file his response. In a hand-printed response dated May 30, 2007, filed on June 4, 2007, defendant contends that his letter, received by the trial court on August 25, 2006, should have triggered a Marsden hearing. (People v.Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).) He asserts that the jurys finding on the element of his specific intent was baseless, and his trial counsel never dug into his defense that he mistakenly believed he was authorized to enter the apartment. Defendant claims that the trial courts failure to order a Marsden hearing demonstrates that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Comments on P. v. Sutton