P. v. Garnica
Peter Munoz Garnica filed his appeal after pleading no contest to one charge of knowingly receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code,[1] 496, subd. (a).) He additionally pled no contest (in response to a separate complaint) to charges of grand theft auto. ( 487d.) On appeal, Garnica contends that the trial court committed Marsden error (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) by failing to inquire into his complaint that defense counsel refused to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Garnica argues that the courts Marsden inquiry was inadequate and as such the trial court erred in denying his motion for substitute counsel. Court find the courts Marsden inquiry sufficient and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Garnica