Right to Counsel

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.

"[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.)

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

Right to self-representation under Faretta v. California

Right to self-representation vs right to speedy trial

• People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 940 ["hard choices are not unconstitutional."]

• 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.)