1

Filed 3/3/16 P. v. Geeting CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LESTER MARK GEETING,

Defendant and Appellant.

C079512

(Super. Ct. No. CM041811)

Appointed counsel for defendant Lester Mark Geeting has asked us to review his 

conviction pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Finding no 

arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will 

affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged with possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & 

Saf. Code, § 11378 – count 1), possession for sale of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11351 – count 2), possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 29800, 
2

subd. (a)(1) – count 3),1 misdemeanor possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11350, subd. (a) – count 4), and misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine 

(Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a) – count 5). The complaint alleged that, as to 

counts 1 and 2, defendant had sustained a prior controlled substance conviction within the 

meaning of Health and Safety Code, section 11370.2, subdivision (a). The complaint 

further alleged that, as to all counts, defendant suffered three prior prison terms within the 

meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), and a prior strike conviction within the 

meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (j). 

On the eve of trial, defendant made a verbal Marsden motion objecting to certain 

aspects of his legal representation. At the hearing, he clarified that he would “stipulate I 

will accept the attorney, but I am hoping that per the language [in] Marsden, admonish 

my attorney to complete a few pertinent tasks.” The trial court denied the motion. 

Defendant made a subsequent Marsden motion seeking to replace his attorney. After 

holding a hearing, the court denied that motion as well.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to possession for sale of 

methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted the prior strike in 

exchange for a dismissal with a Harvey2 waiver of the balance of charges and allegations 

against him. The parties stipulated that the factual basis was as stated in the probation 

report. The report recited that Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force agents had 

received information that defendant, who was on post release supervision and subject to 

warrantless search, was involved with narcotics trafficking and use, was living at a home 

that was not his registered address, and was in possession of a firearm. Based on that 

information, agents conducted a search of the home where they found and detained a 

 

1

 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2

 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
3

number of individuals including defendant. A search revealed $901 in defendant’s 

pocket, a bag containing 28.3 grams of methamphetamine on the living room floor, 

another bag containing 2.4 grams of methamphetamine and a used syringe on top of the 

dresser in defendant’s bedroom, six unused syringes inside a bag near defendant’s bed, 

and 0.5 grams of methamphetamine hidden in a secret pouch sewn into defendant’s pants. 

Agents also found, among other things, an unloaded .22-caliber pistol in the top dresser 

drawer of a bedroom occupied by defendant’s roommates, multiple rounds of 

ammunition and a digital scale with heroin residue on it in the living room, and a bag 

containing 53.7 grams of heroin under the refrigerator. 

At sentencing, defendant requested that the trial court strike his prior strike 

conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The 

court denied the motion. 

The court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years on count one, 

doubled due to the prior strike, for an aggregate sentence of four years in state prison. 

The court awarded defendant 856 days of presentence custody credit (428 actual days 

plus 428 days of conduct credit), and imposed the following fees and fines: a $1,680

restitution fine (§ 1202.4); a $1,680 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), stayed pending 

successful completion of parole; a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. 

(a)(1)); a $30 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373); a fee of $195 which included a $50 

criminal laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)) plus 

associated fees, surcharges, penalties, and assessments as detailed in the probation report; 

a fee of $585 which included a $150 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, 

subd. (a)) plus associated fees, surcharges, penalties, and assessments as detailed in the 

probation report; $736 for the cost of the presentence investigation report (§ 1203.1b), 

and a public defender fee of $420. Defendant did not object to the imposition of those 

fees and fines.
4

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court denied his request for a 

certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this 

court review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 

(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a 

supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 

days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. 

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 /s/

Duarte, J.

We concur:

 /s/

Hull, Acting P. J.

 /s/

Butz, J.