Martinez v. People, No. 23643
| Docket Nº | No. 23643 |
| Citation | 173 Colo. 515, 480 P.2d 843 |
| Case Date | February 16, 1971 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Page 843
v.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error.
[173 Colo. 516]
Page 844
Allan R. Cooter, Eugene T. Halaas, Jr., Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert L. Hoecker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
DAY, Justice.
Defendant Martinez was convicted of burglary in the Pueblo district court. He seeks reversal and a new trial, contending that the trial court committed error in refusing to allow appointed counsel to withdraw, and that the counsel thus compelled by the court to remain in [173 Colo. 517] the case proved to be ineffective, resulting in his being denied a fair trial.
The difficulties between Martinez and his lawyer were called to the attention of the court six days prior to trial. Counsel informed the court that he had advised the defendant that his defense to the burglary charge was weak and that it was his considered advice that the defendant enter a guilty plea to a lesser charge. When defendant refused to follow the advice of counsel and stated that he wished to have his case tried, the lawyer told Martinez 'I am glad it is not me that is facing the court with the case that you have.' Counsel further advised the court that defendant had made 'some rather strong statements to me which I believe will certainly handicap me in representing him.'
At the hearing on the motion by counsel to withdraw, the defendant stated to the court that his attorney had refused to subpoena some thirteen additional witnesses that could help establish the defendant's whereabouts at the time of the alleged crime, and that he believed counsel's attitude toward him deprived him of due process.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that appointed counsel was adequately trained and experienced and ruled that the indigent defendant did not have the right to pick and choose counsel to represent him. We point out that counsel representing the defendant in this court is not the one who represented him in the trial.
I.
We take up the first point--the argument that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the withdrawal of appointed counsel.
The standard of 'effective assistance of counsel' (Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158) does not guarantee a defendant the right to choose his appointed counsel. Valarde v. People, 156 Colo. 375, 399 P.2d 245. Nor does it guarantee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drumgo v. Superior Court, S.F. 22953
...and, at least absent a statute expressly providing to the contrary, of our sister state courts (e.g., Martinez v. People (1971), 173 Colo. 515, 519, 480 P.2d 843; People v. Gray (1965), 33 Ill.2d 349, 353--355, 211 N.E.2d 369; State v. Fagerstrom (1970), 286 Minn. 295, 299, 176 N.W.2d 261; ......
-
People v. Curtis, Nos. 82SC414
..."is so inherently personal and fundamental that it can be waived only by the defendant and not his attorney"); Martinez v. People, 173 Colo. 515, 518, 480 P.2d 843, 844 (1971) (decision whether to testify is of a fundamental nature). However, we have held on several occasions that the decis......
-
People v. Silva, No. 04CA0661.
...or that the representation received at trial was so inadequate as to constitute a farce, mockery or sham." Martinez v. People, 173 Colo. 515, 519-20, 480 P.2d 843, 845 (1971); see also People v. Pesis, 189 Colo. 52, 536 P.2d 824 Several circuits, including the Tenth Circuit, abandoned the "......
-
Irvin v. State, No. 4823
...Cal.Rptr. 631, 506 P.2d 1007, 66 A.L.R.3d 984 (1973), cert. den., 414 U.S. 979, 94 S.Ct. 272, 38 L.Ed.2d 223 (1973); Martinez v. People, 173 Colo. 515, 480 P.2d 843 (1971); State v. Forsness, 159 Mont. 105, 495 P.2d 176 In this instance after remand upon reversal of the first conviction an ......
-
Drumgo v. Superior Court, S.F. 22953
...and, at least absent a statute expressly providing to the contrary, of our sister state courts (e.g., Martinez v. People (1971), 173 Colo. 515, 519, 480 P.2d 843; People v. Gray (1965), 33 Ill.2d 349, 353--355, 211 N.E.2d 369; State v. Fagerstrom (1970), 286 Minn. 295, 299, 176 N.W.2d 261; ......
-
People v. Curtis, Nos. 82SC414
..."is so inherently personal and fundamental that it can be waived only by the defendant and not his attorney"); Martinez v. People, 173 Colo. 515, 518, 480 P.2d 843, 844 (1971) (decision whether to testify is of a fundamental nature). However, we have held on several occasions that the decis......
-
People v. Silva, No. 04CA0661.
...or that the representation received at trial was so inadequate as to constitute a farce, mockery or sham." Martinez v. People, 173 Colo. 515, 519-20, 480 P.2d 843, 845 (1971); see also People v. Pesis, 189 Colo. 52, 536 P.2d 824 Several circuits, including the Tenth Circuit, abandoned the "......
-
Irvin v. State, No. 4823
...Cal.Rptr. 631, 506 P.2d 1007, 66 A.L.R.3d 984 (1973), cert. den., 414 U.S. 979, 94 S.Ct. 272, 38 L.Ed.2d 223 (1973); Martinez v. People, 173 Colo. 515, 480 P.2d 843 (1971); State v. Forsness, 159 Mont. 105, 495 P.2d 176 In this instance after remand upon reversal of the first conviction an ......