People v. Gurley CA1/5

DISCUSSION

I. We Must Conditionally Reverse for a Marsden Hearing

Appellant argues, and respondent agrees, that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a Marsden hearing based on comments appellant made at the time of sentencing. In Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118, “the California Supreme Court held that the constitutional right of criminal defendants to the assistance of court- appointed counsel if they cannot afford private counsel encompasses the right to have their court-appointed counsel discharged and replaced by another one when the ‘ “ ‘failure to do so would substantially impair or deny the right’ ” ’ to assistance of counsel. [Citation.] ‘ “A defendant is entitled to [this] relief if the record clearly shows that the first appointed attorney is not providing adequate representation [citation] or that defendant and counsel have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result [citations].” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] [¶] ‘[A] proper and formal’ Marsden motion is not required—the defendant need only clearly indicate to the trial court ‘in some manner’ that he or she is requesting the discharge and replacement of…