People v. Hagerman CA5

── People v. Hagerman CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/8/26 P. v. Hagerman CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F088289 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF58594 & v. CRF71731) AARON RANDALL HAGERMAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Kevin M. Seibert, Judge. Maureen M. Bodo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench and Anna J. Benham, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-  INTRODUCTION A jury convicted Aaron Randall Hagerman (appellant) of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); count 1),1 kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a); count 2), and kidnapping during the commission of a carjacking (§ 209.5, subd. (a); count 5). The trial court sentenced appellant to seven years to life in state prison plus a consecutive determinate term of 11 years.2 On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his two motions to replace appointed defense counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. We conclude denial of the motions was not an abuse of discretion. We affirm. BACKGROUND Because appellant’s sole claim on appeal challenges the denial of his Marsden motions, we need not recount the evidence of the charged offenses in detail. (See People v. White (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 914, 916, fn. 2.) In brief, on December 22, 2022, Alyssa Hoyopatubbi directed the victim to drive her to a trailer, claiming she resided there and needed to pick up some belongings. After they entered the trailer, the victim was accosted by appellant and another individual, Jeffrey Moore. The men tied the victim up, beat him, demanded money and drugs, and took his phone, clothes, and about $200 from his person. Later, they dragged the victim to his car, put him facedown in the backseat, and drove around for about 45 minutes. When the car stopped, the men pulled the victim out, placed him in a hole in the ground, threatened to kill him if he reported the incident to the police, and instructed him to wait five minutes before emerging. After the men left, the victim climbed out of the hole and flagged down a passing ambulance for assistance. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 Appellant’s total sentence included a consecutive determinate term of three years for a violation of probation in a separate matter. 2.  Law enforcement processed the victim’s car for fingerprints. Two prints recovered from the exterior rear driver’s-side window matched appellant. During a law enforcement interview, appellant admitted his involvement in the robbery and kidnapping. He stated that Hoyopatubbi proposed that she, appellant, and Moore rob the victim because he had recently won a substantial sum o