People v. Brooks CA5

DISCUSSION

Marsden Hearing In Marsden, the California Supreme Court held that it was error for a trial court to deny a defendant‟s request for appointment of substitute counsel without giving him an opportunity to explain the basis for his request. (Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 124.) In a more recent opinion the high court explained:

“Under the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel „“„[a] defendant is entitled to [substitute another appointed attorney] 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.‟”‟ (People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 857 (Memro).) Furthermore, „“„When a defendant seeks to discharge 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.‟”‟ (Ibid.) „We review the court‟s rulings for an abuse of discretion.‟ (Ibid.)

“A defendant does not have the right to…