People v. Korol CA4/1

BACKGROUND

Korol entered a hotel room, rented by a resident, with the intent to commit theft,

on nine separate occasions.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and

proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to

review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 counsel mentions as possible, but

not arguable, issues: (1) whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to permit

Korol to withdraw his plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) whether

the court abused its discretion by denying Korol's request to represent himself at

sentencing; and (3) whether the court abused its discretion by denying his Marsden

motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118).

We granted Korol permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not

responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible

The abstract of judgment erroneously refers to the two-year sentences on counts 13 through 15 as middle terms. We order the abstract of judgment corrected…