99 Cal.App.5th 391
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Lamont Dean was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and bringing drugs into jail, with a prior strike allegation enhancing his sentence.
- He was originally sentenced to 13 years in prison, including doubled time for the strike, and various fines and fees.
- An earlier appeal resulted in remand for resentencing after a change in sentencing law; on remand, the court resentenced him to nine years and again imposed fines.
- Dean appealed again, challenging the calculation of his custody credits, the imposition of fines despite claimed indigency, the validity of his admission to the strike allegation, and the denial of his Marsden motion (to change counsel).
- The Attorney General largely conceded error as to custody credits, fines, and the admission to the strike, suggesting remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calculation of custody credits | Supported recalc incl. conduct credits for prison time | Only actual time should be recalculated, not additional conduct | Court erred; only actual time should be recalculated |
| Imposition of fines/fees given indigency | No detailed argument; conceded remand needed for ability-to-pay | Fines imposed without inquiry into ability to pay; improper | Remanded for ability-to-pay hearing |
| Admission to strike allegation (validity) | Admission was flawed, missing required advisements | Did not receive necessary admonitions; admission invalid | Admission invalid; strike finding set aside |
| Marsden motion (change of counsel) | Opposed; counsel still fit as only credits were at issue | Ineffective assistance; wanted counsel replaced | On remand, court to reconsider if motion is renewed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Buckhalter, 26 Cal.4th 20 (Cal. 2001) (clarifies recalculation of custody credits upon resentencing)
- People v. Cross, 61 Cal.4th 164 (Cal. 2015) (lays out requirements for valid admission to prior conviction allegations)
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (Cal. 1970) (sets standard for motions to substitute appointed counsel)
- People v. Farwell, 5 Cal.5th 295 (Cal. 2018) (totality of circumstances standard for reviewing advisement errors)