People v. Carter
| Decision Date | 21 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | C094949 |
| Citation | 86 Cal.App.5th 739,303 Cal.Rptr.3d 71 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ishmael Michael CARTER, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
John L. Staley, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Clara M. Levers, Deputy Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After defendant Ishmael Michael Carter was housed for more than 14 years in a state hospital awaiting trial, the trial court found him to be a sexually violent predator and committed him to an indeterminate term. Defendant appeals contending the trial court: (1) abused its discretion in denying his Marsden1 motion; and (2) failed to obtain a valid waiver of defendant's right to a jury trial. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
On May 29, 2007, a petition to commit defendant as a sexually violent predator was filed. On August 1, 2007, the parties submitted on probable cause that defendant met the criteria for commitment and the court ordered defendant transported to Coalinga State Hospital.3 Defendant waived time for trial for the opportunity to educate himself and receive treatment.
From October 2007 to November 2019, trial setting conferences were continued at the request of one side or the other or both, but mainly by the public defender on behalf of defendant, for various reasons as noted in the court's minute orders. For example, minute orders on September 22, 2008, June 29, 2009, and July 15, 2009, noted the public defender's efforts to obtain defendant's medical records by subpoena and a court order. A minute order on October 7, 2009, stated defendant wanted to secure an expert. A March 21, 2011 minute order noted that defendant was working on his sex offender treatment program. On January 23, 2014, a minute order noted that both parties requested a continuance because the hospital needed to do a further evaluation. On April 30, 2014, the minute order noted, "Def[endant] still in treatment[,] not ready to set trial."
On January 25, 2016, a minute order noted that defendant was continuing treatment at Coalinga State Hospital. On November 8, 2016, trial setting was continued at defendant's request for additional evaluation by an expert witness. A minute order dated November 21, 2017, noted that the judge signed an order for an early evaluation. On April 23, 2018, the minute order noted that the court had not received the new evaluation. On October 22, 2018, the minute order noted that defendant had retained an expert. On April 10, 2019 and May 22, 2019, the minute orders noted that the defense's expert had evaluated defendant. A July 15, 2019 minute order noted a continuance requested by both parties to allow counsel the opportunity to coordinate with doctors (who would presumably testify at trial). An August 12, 2019 minute order noted that the People had requested, and the court order, an additional evaluation. On October 7, 2019, the minute order continuing trial setting noted that defendant was waiting for two reports.
On January 30, 2020, the court set a jury trial for May 11, 2020. Further continuances and delays for other reasons followed leading to a new jury trial date of June 21, 2021. On May 17, 2021, supervising deputy public defender Monica Brushia moved to continue the trial on the ground that she had "inherited" the case and realized she had much to learn. The People did not object, and the court granted the motion. On June 18, 2021, the court set the case for jury trial on September 13, 2021.
On September 13, 2021, defendant waived jury trial. A court trial began on that date. On September 27, 2021, the trial judge ruled that the People had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was a sexually violent predator. The court ordered defendant committed for an indeterminate term.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
On December 13, 2019, chief deputy public defender Allison Zuvela forwarded defendant's pro. per. Marsden motion to the superior court and requested that the matter be put on calendar for a hearing. In the Marsden motion, defendant sought appointment of substitute counsel and to disqualify Zuvela and the public defender's office, claiming that (1) Zuvela was a percipient witness and disqualification was necessary to protect defendant's confidential information and avoid a conflict of interest, and (2) defense counsel was responsible for delays that violated defendant's due process right to a speedy trial.
At the same time, defendant submitted a motion for dismissal under People v. Superior Court (Vasquez) (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 36, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 14 and People v. Litmon (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 383, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 122 for violation of his right to a speedy trial, noting that he had been at Coalinga State Hospital for 12 years.4
On December 19, 2019, the trial court continued the hearing on defendant's motions to January 15, 2020. The court inquired whether defense counsel wanted both motions heard and Zuvela suggested that the Marsden motion be heard first. Zuvela explained:
The court heard the Marsden motion on January 15, 2020. When the court asked defendant why he wanted to replace his lawyer, defendant responded:
Defendant added,
In response to a further question from the court, defendant confirmed that Zuvela had been in touch with him by letter or telephone, and also said, "Usually when I call, a good portion of the time she responded back immediately and there was times she didn't because either she wasn't in the office or she was in another trial."
Defendant said his previous public defender was hard to contact "a lot of times." Many times when the trial or a hearing was delayed, defendant did not hear about it until defendant called in to the public defender's office and was informed of the continuance by a secretary.
When the court inquired if there were any other concerns defendant had about Zuvela representing him, defendant responded, "That was the main one, about the constant delays, and my speedy trial is not being adhered to or things likes [sic ] that, but that's the biggest complaint I've had, is the delays."
When the court asked defendant if Zuvela had explained the reason for the delays, defendant said, 5
Asked by the court if Zuvela had done things she should not have done, defendant first said, "a lot of times they got her in trial, so it's hard to catch her at those times." Then, responding to the court's question whether there were other things Zuvela should be doing but had not done yet, defendant said:
The court then asked Zuvela for comments. Zuvela said that when she inherited the case, she understood that defendant was to do as much sex offender treatment as possible to be in a good position for trial, but it was hard to complete treatment because the hospital kept changing the program. In November 2017, defendant said he was ready for and requested trial, but the district attorney wanted a reevaluation by two doctors and it took a year to get their reports. Zuvela then obtained an expert witness who saw defendant, and on June 5, 2019, provided a report stating defendant did not meet the criteria for a sexually violent predator. Zuvela gave the report to the district attorney and indicated that defendant was ready to set a trial date. The district attorney then wanted a follow-up evaluation. Zuvela did not get the final reports until January 2020, whereupon she again said defendant was ready to set a trial date. Zuvela added that she talked to defendant once or twice a month, went to visit him five months prior, wrote to him frequently, and sent him stamps to respond.
Zuvela concluded,
The court also inquired about defendant's claim that Zuvela was a witness, which defendant clarified he was referring to her awareness of delays involving completing sex offender treatment at the hospital.6 Defendant again faulted Zuvela's predecessor but said, when Zuvela ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Camacho v. Superior Court
...granted June 14, 2023, S279933; People v. Hubbs (Jan. 19, 2023, D077636) [nonpub. opn.] 2023 WL 311941 [15-year delay]; People v. Carter (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 739 [14-year delay]; People v. Lozano (Aug. 10, 2022, C094245) [nonpub. opn.] 2022 WL 3224388 [11-year delay]; People v. Ballardo (M......