Right to Counsel - Revision history

Sysop at 16:49, 29 August 2025

2025-08-29T16:49:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:49, 29 August 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:

	blah		blah

			==1473.7 motions==

			People v. Gutierrez (Aug. 25, 2025, B337683)

			People v. Fryhaat (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 969

	==Indigent defendants==		==Indigent defendants==

Sysop at 01:36, 25 November 2024

2024-11-25T01:36:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:36, 25 November 2024
Line 37:		Line 37:

	==Right to self-representation under Faretta v. California==		==Right to self-representation under Faretta v. California==

			===Unequivocal request===

			''People v. Burgener (2016) 1 Cal.5th 461

	===Right to self-representation vs right to speedy trial===		===Right to self-representation vs right to speedy trial===

Sysop: /* Right to self-representation under Faretta v. California */

2024-11-24T23:48:37Z

Right to self-representation under Faretta v. California

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:48, 24 November 2024
Line 45:		Line 45:

	fn. 2 "When counsel stated their appearances on August 4, no one actually announced “ready” and the plan to defer swearing the jury to August 10 raises a question about whether trial “commenced” on August 4 or August 10. Since the defendants win under either approach, we discuss only the stricter discretionary rule, treating August 4 as the day trial commenced. (But see People v. Gephart (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 989, 998, 156 Cal.Rptr. 489 [for jeopardy purposes, trial commences when the jury is sworn].) People v. Nicholson (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 584, 591 fn.2.)		fn. 2 "When counsel stated their appearances on August 4, no one actually announced “ready” and the plan to defer swearing the jury to August 10 raises a question about whether trial “commenced” on August 4 or August 10. Since the defendants win under either approach, we discuss only the stricter discretionary rule, treating August 4 as the day trial commenced. (But see People v. Gephart (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 989, 998, 156 Cal.Rptr. 489 [for jeopardy purposes, trial commences when the jury is sworn].) People v. Nicholson (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 584, 591 fn.2.)

			We have found only two reported decisions in which the trial courts denied Faretta motions when the defendants were ready to proceed without a continuance, People v. Herrera (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 167, 174–175, 163 Cal.Rptr. 435, and People v. Tyner (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 352, 355, 143 Cal.Rptr. 52. In both cases, the denials resulted in reversals. (People v. Nicholson (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 584, 593.)

Sysop: /* Right to self-representation vs right to speedy trial */

2024-11-24T23:23:17Z

Right to self-representation vs right to speedy trial

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 24 November 2024
Line 43:		Line 43:

	* the court had discretion to deny the motions. In exercising that discretion, the trial court was required to consider (1) the quality of counsels' representation, (2) the defendants' prior proclivity to substitute counsel, (3) the reasons for the request, (4) the length and stage of the proceedings, and (5) the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion. (People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128, 137 Cal.Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187; People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 853, 258 Cal.Rptr. 184, 771 P.2d 1270.) (''People v. Nicholson'' (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 584, 591.)		* the court had discretion to deny the motions. In exercising that discretion, the trial court was required to consider (1) the quality of counsels' representation, (2) the defendants' prior proclivity to substitute counsel, (3) the reasons for the request, (4) the length and stage of the proceedings, and (5) the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion. (People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128, 137 Cal.Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187; People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 853, 258 Cal.Rptr. 184, 771 P.2d 1270.) (''People v. Nicholson'' (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 584, 591.)

			fn. 2 "When counsel stated their appearances on August 4, no one actually announced “ready” and the plan to defer swearing the jury to August 10 raises a question about whether trial “commenced” on August 4 or August 10. Since the defendants win under either approach, we discuss only the stricter discretionary rule, treating August 4 as the day trial commenced. (But see People v. Gephart (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 989, 998, 156 Cal.Rptr. 489 [for jeopardy purposes, trial commences when the jury is sworn].) People v. Nicholson (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 584, 591 fn.2.)

Sysop: /* Right to self-representation vs right to speedy trial */

2024-11-24T23:21:54Z

Right to self-representation vs right to speedy trial

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:21, 24 November 2024
Line 42:		Line 42:
	* [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7100282083422199308 People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 940 ["hard choices are not unconstitutional."]]		* [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7100282083422199308 People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 940 ["hard choices are not unconstitutional."]]

	* the court had discretion to deny the motions.2 In exercising that discretion, the trial court **490 was required to consider (1) the quality of counsels' representation, (2) the defendants' prior proclivity to substitute counsel, (3) the reasons for the request, (4) the length and stage of the proceedings, and (5) the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion. (People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128, 137 Cal.Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187; People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 853, 258 Cal.Rptr. 184, 771 P.2d 1270.) (''People v. Nicholson'' (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 584, 591.)		* the court had discretion to deny the motions. In exercising that discretion, the trial court was required to consider (1) the quality of counsels' representation, (2) the defendants' prior proclivity to substitute counsel, (3) the reasons for the request, (4) the length and stage of the proceedings, and (5) the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion. (People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128, 137 Cal.Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187; People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 853, 258 Cal.Rptr. 184, 771 P.2d 1270.) (''People v. Nicholson'' (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 584, 591.)

Sysop at 23:21, 24 November 2024

2024-11-24T23:21:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:21, 24 November 2024
Line 37:		Line 37:

	==Right to self-representation under Faretta v. California==		==Right to self-representation under Faretta v. California==

			===Right to self-representation vs right to speedy trial===

			* [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7100282083422199308 People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 940 ["hard choices are not unconstitutional."]]

			* the court had discretion to deny the motions.2 In exercising that discretion, the trial court **490 was required to consider (1) the quality of counsels' representation, (2) the defendants' prior proclivity to substitute counsel, (3) the reasons for the request, (4) the length and stage of the proceedings, and (5) the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion. (People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128, 137 Cal.Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187; People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 853, 258 Cal.Rptr. 184, 771 P.2d 1270.) (''People v. Nicholson'' (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 584, 591.)

Sysop at 23:19, 24 November 2024

2024-11-24T23:19:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:19, 24 November 2024
Line 35:		Line 35:

	Marsden available under SVP or LPS People v. Hill (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 646		Marsden available under SVP or LPS People v. Hill (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 646

			==Right to self-representation under Faretta v. California==

Sysop: /* Marsden motion to substitute appointed counsel */

2021-11-04T15:23:38Z

Marsden motion to substitute appointed counsel

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:23, 4 November 2021
Line 25:		Line 25:

	Defendant can waive Marsden by failing to notify court. (''People v. Jones'' (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 355; ''People v. Vera'' (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 970, 981-2.)		Defendant can waive Marsden by failing to notify court. (''People v. Jones'' (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 355; ''People v. Vera'' (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 970, 981-2.)

			A full hearing is not required when defendant's dissatisfaction with counsel
			is set forth in a letter or handwritten motion of sufficient detail.
			People v. Terrill (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 291, 298

			Court may appoint independent counsel to assist defendant with Marsden motion.
			People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997
			People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856

			Marsden available under SVP or LPS People v. Hill (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 646

Sysop at 23:20, 8 July 2021

2021-07-08T23:20:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:20, 8 July 2021
Line 23:		Line 23:

	"[M]erely express[ing] some unhappiness with certain aspects of counsel's handling of his case" is not a Marsden hearing request. (People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 410, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Williams (2011) 49 Cal.4th 405.)		"[M]erely express[ing] some unhappiness with certain aspects of counsel's handling of his case" is not a Marsden hearing request. (People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 410, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Williams (2011) 49 Cal.4th 405.)

			Defendant can waive Marsden by failing to notify court. (''People v. Jones'' (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 355; ''People v. Vera'' (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 970, 981-2.)

Sysop at 23:13, 8 July 2021

2021-07-08T23:13:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:13, 8 July 2021
Line 21:		Line 21:

	"[T]he court must allow the accused to give specific reasons why he wishes replacement of his appointed counsel. (''People v. Montiel'' (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 906, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 679.) But court doesn't have a sua sponte duty.		"[T]he court must allow the accused to give specific reasons why he wishes replacement of his appointed counsel. (''People v. Montiel'' (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 906, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 679.) But court doesn't have a sua sponte duty.

			"[M]erely express[ing] some unhappiness with certain aspects of counsel's handling of his case" is not a Marsden hearing request. (People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 410, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Williams (2011) 49 Cal.4th 405.)