Hill

Defendant Richard Clinton Hill appeals an order civilly committing him to a state hospital under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.; the SVPA.) He contends that he had a constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court violated that right by refusing to consider his Marsden motion to replace his court-appointed attorney. He also contends that his right to a fair trial was violated by the trial judge’s “multi-tasking” during the trial and that the indefinite commitments provided for in SVPA proceedings violate equal protection principles.

We reject the latter two contentions. However, we agree that defendant was entitled to a Marsden hearing and that the trial court’s failure to conduct a Marsden hearing was prejudicial error.

BACKGROUND

Defendant does not challenge the jury’s finding that he meets the statutory definition of a sexually violent predator. Accordingly, we need not discuss the underlying offenses or the expert testimony supporting the jury’s findings. For our purposes, it suffices to say that the district attorney filed a petition for Commitment under the SVPA and that a jury found the…