(Super. Ct. No. 08F10399)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch , J.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
A jury convicted defendant Ladon Bowden of the felony of inflicting corporal injury on a former cohabitant that resulted in a traumatic condition, and of the misdemeanor of resisting a peace officer. As defendant waived a jury trial, the court sustained allegations that defendant had prior convictions in 1994 for the "serious" felony of robbery.*fn1 (§ 211, § 667, subd. (d) & § 1192.7, subd. (c)(19).) Defendant filed a renewal of his pretrial request that the court exercise its discretion to strike one or both of the prior serious felony conviction allegations pursuant to section 1385. The court declined the request and sentenced defendant to prison for 25 years to life. (§ 667, subd. (e).)
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his pretrial request for substitution of appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden), and in declining to exercise its discretion to strike either of the prior serious felony conviction allegations under section 1385. As modified, we affirm the judgment.
The evidence at trial is not, for the most part, implicated in the arguments on appeal. We will incorporate any facts that are relevant in the Discussion.
Request for Substitution of Appointed Counsel
After defense counsel obtained several continuances of the trial date, the court held a hearing in camera in response to defendant's request to relieve the assistant public defender as his attorney. Defendant asserted several areas of dissatisfaction.
The one to which he limits his focus on appeal was his complaint that the public defender's office refused to run DNA tests of blood found in the vehicle where he and the victim had fought, because the tests would be too expensive. In his view, this apparently would establish that the blood was solely his own (because he claimed reports stated the victim ...