People v. Marsden
Decision Date | 26 February 1970 |
Docket Number | Cr. 14119 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 465 P.2d 44 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael John MARSDEN, Defendant and Appellant. |
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.
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 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 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:
Defendant now contends that the denial of the motion for substitution of attorneys, without giving him an opportunity to enumerate specific examples of inadequate representation, deprived him of a fair trial.
We start with the proposition in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, that criminal defendants are entitled under the Constitution to the assistance of court-appointed counsel if they are unable to employ private counsel. However, the decision whether to permit a defendant to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney during the trial is within the discretion of the trial court, and a defendant has no absolute right to more than one appointed attorney. ' ' * * * (People v. Mitchell (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 507, 512, 8 Cal.Rptr. 319, 323, quoting 157 A.L.R. 1225, 1226; See People v. Johnson (1969) 271 A.C.A. 963, 971; People v. Foust (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 222, 228, 72 Cal.Rptr. 675; In re Bunker (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 297, 311, 60 Cal.Rptr. 344; People v. Bourland (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 76, 84--85, 55 Cal.Rptr. 357; People v. Jackson (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 307, 315, 8 Cal.Rptr. 849.)
Defendant properly contends that the trial court cannot thoughtfully exercise its discretion in this matter without listening to his reasons for requesting a change of attorneys. A trial judge is unable to intelligently deal with a defendant's request for substitution of attorneys unless he is cognizant of the grounds which prompted the request. The defendant may have knowledge of conduct and events relevant to the diligence and competence of his attorney which are not apparent to the trial judge from observations within the four corners of the courtroom. Indeed, '(w)hen inadequate representation is alleged, the critical factual inquiry ordinarily relates to matters outside the trial record: whether the defendant had a defense which was not presented; whether trial counsel consulted sufficiently with the accused, and adequately investigated the facts and the law; whether the omissions charged to trial counsel resulted from inadequate preparation rather than from unwise choice of trial tactics and strategy.' (Brubaker v. Dickson (9th Cir. 1962) 310 F.2d 30, 32.) Thus, a judge who denies a motion for substitution of attorneys solely on the basis of his courtroom observations, despite a defendant's offer to relate specific instances of misconduct, abuses the exercise of his discretion to determine the competency of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Brown
...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 that de......
-
Jernigan v. Edward
...testimony, and eliciting testimony from the defense DNA expert Marc Taylor. He also claims Plourd lied about his performance at the Marsden6 hearing.7 (ECF No. 1, Attach. #1, 15.) In what Petitioner describes as section four, ground seven, Jernigan contends Plourd failed to use favorable ev......
-
People v. Lucky
...was considering the idea of retaining private counsel in lieu of Mr. Shaw, the court had a duty under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44 to give defendant an opportunity to state fully the grounds for his dissatisfaction with appointed At the outset of the ......
-
Dominguez v. Trimble
...right to compulsory process.Appellant subsequently wrote a letter to the court that resulted in a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. Although not making a finding that there was ineffective assistance of counsel, the court appointed new counsel for appellant. Mr. Wen......
-
Chapter 4 - §4. Attorney-client privilege
...raises an issue of inadequate representation or potential inadequate representation through a hearing under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 ("Marsden hearing"), the attorney-client privilege is likely inapplicable for the purpose of that hearing. See In re Gray (4th Dist.1981) 123 Cal......
-
Chapter 4 - §3. Privilege against self-incrimination
...held that a defendant must be granted use immunity for disclosures he makes during a hearing held according to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. People v. Knight (4th Dist.2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1, 8. See "Marsden hearing," ch. 4-C, §4.3.3(2). This limited immunity, however, does not pr......
-
Table of Cases null
...Ch. 8, §1.1.3 People v. Marquez, 1 Cal. 4th 553, 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 710, 822 P.2d 418 (1992)—Ch. 5-A, §2.2.3(1)(b)[1] People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118, 84 Cal. Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44 (1970)—Ch. 4-C, §3.2.2(1)(d)[2][g]; §4.3.3(2) People v. Marsh, 175 Cal. App. 3d 987, 221 Cal. Rptr. 311 (4th Di......