People v. Smith, 209 Cal. App. 4th 910

Defendant Troy Smith was convicted of five counts of indecent exposure based on three incidents involving multiple witnesses.
Incidents occurred January 13, 2011 (counts 1-2), February 22, 2011 (count 3), and February 24, 2011 (counts 4-5).
In the February 24 incident, three observers saw ongoing exposure; curtain movements occurred between observations.
Trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years four months, with multiple prior-acts enhancements; credits were disputed.
On appeal, defendant challenged Marsden denials, the double-counting of counts for a single exposure, and presentence credits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Marsden denials were abuse of discretion	Smith argues denial violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel.	Smith contends counsel was ineffective due to Marsden rulings.	No abuse; Marsden rulings affirmed.
Two counts for a single February 24 exposure violate double jeopardy	Vars guidance shows multiple observers justify multiple convictions.	Same exposure should yield one conviction.	One exposure sufficed; count 5 reversed; counts 4-5 merged; sentence modified.
Awarded presentence credits were miscalculated	Credits calculation improper under nonviolent-crimes framework.	Entitled to correct local conduct credits.	Defendant entitled to 49 additional days of local conduct credit; sentence adjusted.

People v. Coyle, 178 Cal.App.4th 209 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (dual consideration of offenses and underlying acts)
Carbajal v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App.4th 978 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (visual observation not element of indecent exposure)
State v. Vars, 237 P.3d 378 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (gravamen is the exposure itself; observers don't create new offenses)
People v. Harrison, 256 Cal.Rptr. 401 (Cal. 1989) (same-intent, close-timing penetrations; limits to multiple convictions)
People v. Clair, 197 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (temporal divisibility when defendant can reflect between offenses)