People v. Smith CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant filed a supplemental brief requesting we “look at” counsel’s repeated requests to be removed from the case, defendant’s pre-plea Marsden3 motion, his claim that counsel did not conduct interviews prior to trial and did not inform him of other plea deals or offers, that the restitution order was excessive, “especialy [sic] if cases were dropped/dismissed,” and he was not given his Boykin/Tahl4 rights at the time of sentencing. As to defendant’s claims regarding counsel, the Marsden motions and counsel’s requests to be removed from the case, those claims are forfeited by his plea. (People v. Lovings (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1305; People v. Lobaugh (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 780.) As to the claim regarding his Boykin/Tahl rights, the record reflects defendant was properly advised of his Boykin/Tahl rights at the time of his plea. Lastly, defendant agreed, as part of the plea that the court could consider the dismissed charges in deciding his sentence, “including the issue of restitution on those charges.” Accordingly, defendant waived the complaint on appeal as to direct victim restitution for dismissed charges. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we…