People v. Owens CA2/7

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Owens in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. Appointed counsel advised Owens on October 12, 2022 that he could personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted the court to consider. On October 28, 2022 we received nine handwritten pages from Owens, four of which appear to be a copy of a document sent by Owens to his appellate counsel suggesting several possible issues for appeal and the balance of which is Owens’s version of the incident that resulted in his convictions. Owens’s claims lack merit. First, Owens points out that the trial court denied his request to replace his appointed counsel, suggesting this was error. It was not. On the day scheduled for the start of jury selection, the court held a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 to consider Owens’s request for a new attorney. Asked what it was that his current counsel was doing or not doing that concerned him, Owens responded that he did not believe she was a bad lawyer, but thought she was too busy for his case and, specifically, had not communicated sufficiently with him while the case was pending.…