P.

DISCUSSION

1. The Trial Court Did Not Err by Failing to Conduct a Marsden Hearing on January 9 or 23, 2012. a. Pertinent Facts. We set forth the pertinent facts below and highlight those upon which we particularly rely in our later analysis. The felony complaint in the present case (superior court case No. NA084631) (the present case) alleged as count 1 that on or about January 31, 2010, appellant brought drugs into jail, and alleged a count 2. On February 9, 2010, pursuant to negotiations, appellant pled no contest to count 1, and the court suspended imposition of sentence, placed him on formal probation for one year, and dismissed count 2. In December 2011, the court scheduled a probation violation hearing in the present case, and a preliminary hearing in a new case (new case) for January 9, 2012. On January 9, 2012, the court called both cases, indicated there had been a discussion about a Faretta1 waiver, and asked appellant‟s counsel, Carolyn Disabatino, whether appellant was asking to represent himself. Appellant and Disabatino each said yes. After the court advised appellant in detail as to what would occur if the court that

1 Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45…