Does Defendant's contention that he was wrongfully convicted of a sexual assault have merit?

Defendant's additional contention that he was entitled to a Marsden hearing after the bifurcated court trial on his prior convictions also lacks merit. Defendant did not make an unequivocal request for new counsel at that time. (People v. Dickey (2005) 35 Cal.4th 884, 920.) The basis of defendant's Marsden error claim is his statement: "I'd like to have my attorney file for a retrial, a new trial, because I feel that I wasn't really represented right. I didn't have a fair trial. I feel my constitutional rights was violated, my trial rights was violated."

"'"Although no formal motion is necessary, there must be 'at least some clear indication by defendant that he wants a substitute attorney.'"' [Citations.]" (People v. Dickey, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 920.) While defendant expressed dissatisfaction with his representation during the completed trial, defendant did not clearly indicate he wanted substitute counsel appointed. Rather, he said he wanted his current attorney, not another attorney, to file a motion for new trial. Then, after the trial court discussed the matter with defendant and his attorney, defendant agreed to a delay in sentencing so that his attorney would have additional time to file motions on defendant's behalf. Under such circumstances, the trial court was not required to conduct a Marsden hearing at the conclusion of the court trial on defendant's prior convictions.

Page 21