Right to Counsel: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==Marsden motion to substitute appointed counsel== | ==Marsden motion to substitute appointed counsel== | ||
"[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.) 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. | ||
Revision as of 23:08, 8 July 2021
blah
blah
Indigent defendants
People v. Washington (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 311
McCoy v. Louisiana (2018) 138 S.Ct. 1500
People v. Bernal, H045620, 12/5/19 The client's disagreement with counsel must be part of the record.
People v. Palmer; D074240; 5/22/20; C/A 4th, Div. 1
In re Smith; E073871; 5/26/20; C/A 4th, Div. 2
Marsden motion to substitute appointed counsel
"[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.