People v. Dunsmore CA4/1
D077762
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 23, 2021Background
- In 2010 Dunsmore was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon; he received a lengthy aggregate prison term and multiple enhancements.
- The case produced multiple appeals and remands; this appeal follows a July 15, 2020 resentencing ordered after earlier appellate decisions.
- At the July 15, 2020 resentencing the court held a Marsden hearing in which Dunsmore sought substitution of appointed counsel, alleging unpreparedness, ethical/conflict problems, and disability-related issues. The court denied the Marsden motion and proceeded with resentencing, declining to strike a five‑year serious‑felony prior enhancement.
- At resentencing the court attempted to calculate custody credits but limited actual custody credit to time served through the original 2010 sentencing (June 3, 2010) rather than through the July 15, 2020 resentencing date.
- The parties on appeal agreed the custody credits were miscalculated; the Court of Appeal modified the judgment to award 4,587 days of total custody credit and otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in denying Dunsmore's Marsden motion to substitute appointed counsel | People: Counsel provided adequate, competent representation; no irreconcilable conflict shown | Dunsmore: Counsel was unprepared, had ethical/conflict issues, and ineffective for resentencing | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; even if error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether trial court correctly computed custody credits at resentencing | People: Agreed credits must include all actual custody through resentencing | Dunsmore: Argued credits should be calculated through July 15, 2020 (resentencing date) | Court erred; abstract must be amended to award 4,587 days of custody credit |
| Whether the court properly exercised discretion in declining to strike the five‑year serious‑felony prior | People: Enhancement should remain because of violent history and facts of the case | Dunsmore: Asked court to strike enhancement due to health/disability and changed circumstances | Court declined to strike the enhancement; this ruling was reviewed under the trial court’s broad discretionary authority and was not reversed here |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (established defendant's right to request substitution of appointed counsel when representation is substantially impaired)
- People v. Taylor, 48 Cal.4th 574 (Marsden motion procedure; defendant must specify instances of inadequate performance)
- People v. Buckhalter, 26 Cal.4th 20 (when a sentence is modified during imprisonment, the court must credit all actual custody time served against the subsequent sentence)
- People v. Sanchez, 53 Cal.4th 80 (Marsden error prejudice tested under Chapman harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard)
- People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (authorizes correction of errors and omissions in abstracts of judgment)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (remand appropriate when trial court's exercise of discretion is unclear)
- People v. Loya, 1 Cal.App.5th 932 (applies Chapman standard to prejudice from a denied Marsden motion)