People v. Marsden, Cr. 14119
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Writing for the Court | MOSK; We are unmoved by the rationale of the trial judge for his unwillingness to hear the defendant's basis for dissatisfaction with counsel. An expressed concern that defendant's evidence might 'prejudice you before me as to the case,' lacks substa |
| Citation | 84 Cal.Rptr. 156,2 Cal.3d 118,465 P.2d 44 |
| Parties | , 465 P.2d 44 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael John MARSDEN, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 14119 |
Page 156
v.
Michael John MARSDEN, Defendant and Appellant.
In Bank.
Page 157
[465 P.2d 45] [2 Cal.3d 120] Stephen H. Silver, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Long & Levit, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Jerome C. Utz and Joyce P. Nedde, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
MOSK, Justice.
On August 22, 1968, the District Attorney of Monterey County filed an information charging defendant and Laura Catheryn Repine with five counts of forgery, a violation of section 476 of the Penal Code. It was asserted that defendant and Miss Repine fraudulently cashed $100 money orders at five different motels in Monterey County on August 3 and 4. The money orders had been stolen from a grocery store and were cashed by means of fictitious identification. Defendant was arraigned on August 30, and the court appointed Michael Antoncich as defense counsel. Defendant pleaded not guilty, but was convicted on all five counts after a two-day jury trial. He was sentenced to the state penitentiary.
Defendant's only contention on this appeal is that he was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel because the trial court denied his motion to substitute new counsel without giving him an opportunity to state the reasons for his request.
After the People completed the presentation of their case to the jury, the following colloquy occurred in the judge's chambers:
'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: I don't know how to go about making the motion, Your Honor, but I don't feel that I am being competently or adequately represented by counsel.
'THE COURT: All right. Any comment wished to be made by anyone else on this point? All right. Well, the comment has been made for the court so it's noted, it's on the record.
'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: Thank you.
'THE COURT: All right, that's all.'
Page 158
[465 P.2d 46] The next day at the instigation of the prosecutor the problem relating to defendant and his counsel was again raised in the judge's chambers and this colloquy ensued:
'THE COURT: The Court doesn't recall hearing a motion made or asking [2 Cal.3d 121] any relief from the Court on the part of the defendant Marsden, that's why when he made his statement, the Court said your statement is noted in the record, however, in the interests of caution, the Court will consider it a motion that according to the defendant Marsden he claims his attorney is not representing him properly and therefore the Court will infer that he wishes another attorney or wishes to represent himself, I don't know which. What do you say on that, Mr. Marsden?
'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: Yes, sir, I don't feel that I am getting adequately represented or competently represented, I'd like to make a motion.
'THE COURT: For what?
'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: For proper counsel. I'm not adequate to give it myself and I don't feel I'm being adequately represented. I think the transcript, court's transcript prior to this meeting here can reveal that fact.'
The court then questioned Mr. Antoncich and established that he had represented defendant since his arraignment in municipal court, and that he had also represented Miss Repine until the time of arraignment in the superior court when separate counsel was appointed for her to avoid a possible conflict of interest between the two defendants. The judge proceeded to interrogate defendant as to his background and learned that defendant had served time for burglary and escape in the state prison, that he had never completed high school, that he received a certificate of completion of a high school equivalency course in the Marine Corps, and that he was working before his arrest as a mathematician operating and programming digital computers. Then this discussion occurred between the court and defendant:
'THE COURT: You seem to be (an) intelligent sort of a person. In the times you have been before the court have you been represented by an attorney?
'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: Yes, I have.
'THE COURT: And during these previous occasions when you have been represented by an attorney, have you ever discharged your attorney?
'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: No, I haven't.
'THE COURT: Have you ever represented yourself without an attorney in any of these prior proceedings?
'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: No. I haven't.
'THE COURT: Well, the Court denies the defendant's motion. The Court [2 Cal.3d 122] feels Mr. Antoncich is alert and has raised questions during the course of this hearing that have been good questions to raise. The Court feels he has taken good care of his client to the present time, at least.
'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: Your Honor--
'THE COURT: (Interrupting) And so the Court--yes?
'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: Could I bring up some specific instances?
'THE COURT: I don't want you to say anything that might prejudice you before me as to the case, you see.
'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: I don't think it would.
'THE COURT: I don't want to take that chance.
'There are lots of times when a person--lots of times, and I emphasize that, where a defendant is represented by an attorney where he has just sufficient knowledge to be ignorant and lots of times people want to tell their attorneys how to run a case, which they are not qualified to do. I think possibly you are a bright person and who thinks a case should be conducted in a certain way, which you are not qualified to determine.
Page 159
[465 P.2d 47] 'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: Your Honor.
'THE COURT: Therefore the Court denies the motion. The Court is not going to have a case that has--where the prosecution has been completed and then a person raises this sort of thing where the Court doesn't feel it's appropriate. If this were done, and the Court has this type of thing come up from time to time, you never could complete a case, you'd get in the middle of the case, a defendant, particularly a bright one, raises some question and you never could come to the completion of a trial.
'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: Your Honor, I believe I can show cause. Would the Court show me how I could go about doing this?
'THE COURT: The Court--
'THE DEFENDANT MARSDEN: (Interrupting) I'm ignorant of the law.
'THE COURT: That's right, that's why you have lawyers, Mr. Marsden, the Court it prohibited from giving legal advice to people, so I can't...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Burgener
...of its reasoning and ultimate holding, is somewhat puzzling. One line of cases following this court's decision in People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44 provides further support for the proposition that the trial court's failure to inquire into juror M.'s condi......
-
People v. Brown
...the court's failure to grant his motion violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15; U.S. Const., Amend. We find defendant's argument devoid of merit. We note tha......
-
People v. Dickey, No. S025519.
...was not, on balance, desirable, because it would remind the jury of the incident. 2. Alleged Marsden error "In [People v.] Marsden [(1970) 2 Cal.3d 118], we said: `[A] judge who denies a motion for substitution of attorneys solely on the basis of his courtroom observations, despite a defend......
-
People v. Lara, No. F031900.
...court mistakenly treated appellant's request as a motion to discharge his court-appointed attorney, pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44, and denied appellant's motion. On appeal, appellant contends he was entitled to discharge his privately retai......
-
People v. Burgener
...of its reasoning and ultimate holding, is somewhat puzzling. One line of cases following this court's decision in People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44 provides further support for the proposition that the trial court's failure to inquire into juror M.'s condi......
-
People v. Brown
...the court's failure to grant his motion violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15; U.S. Const., Amend. We find defendant's argument devoid of merit. We note tha......
-
People v. Dickey, No. S025519.
...was not, on balance, desirable, because it would remind the jury of the incident. 2. Alleged Marsden error "In [People v.] Marsden [(1970) 2 Cal.3d 118], we said: `[A] judge who denies a motion for substitution of attorneys solely on the basis of his courtroom observations, despite a defend......
-
People v. Lara, No. F031900.
...court mistakenly treated appellant's request as a motion to discharge his court-appointed attorney, pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44, and denied appellant's motion. On appeal, appellant contends he was entitled to discharge his privately retai......