People v. Johnson, 031319 CASC, S075727

Docket Nº:S075727
Party Name:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CEDRIC JEROME JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Case Date:March 13, 2019
Court:Supreme Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CEDRIC JEROME JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.

S075727

Supreme Court of California

March 13, 2019

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA037977

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

THE COURT:

The opinion in this matter filed December 27, 2018, and appearing at 6 Cal.5th 541, is modified as follows:

1. On pages 572-573 of the opinion, in the paragraph that begins, “The legal principles governing a Marsden motion, ” the third sentence that begins, “But the trial court has” is deleted along with the remainder of the paragraph. This text is inserted in its place:

In People v. Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80, we held that if a defendant requests substitute counsel “at any time during criminal proceedings, ” the trial court must, under Marsden, “give the defendant an opportunity to state any grounds for dissatisfaction with the current appointed attorney.” (Id. at p. 90.) But when a defendant asks for new counsel, a trial court's duty to undertake the Marsden inquiry “arises ‘only when the defendant asserts directly or by implication that his counsel's performance has been so inadequate as to deny him his constitutional right to effective counsel.' ” (People v. Leonard (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 776, 787.)

As modified, the new paragraph reads as follows:

The legal principles governing a Marsden motion are well settled. “ ‘ “When a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation, the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to relate specific instances of the attorney's inadequate performance.”' ” (People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 878, italics added; cf. People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 580 [“When the basis of a defendant's dissatisfaction with counsel is set forth in a letter of sufficient detail, however, a full-blown hearing is not required”].) In People v. Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80, we held that if a defendant requests substitute counsel “at any time during criminal proceedings, ” the trial court must, under Marsden...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP