Stevens

The issue in this case of first impression is whether the respondent court abused its discretion by taking the unprecedented step of removing petitioner’s retained counsel because counsel’s trial schedule would have forced a continuance of petitioner’s case for a period of at least six months.

Although petitioner’s case has proceeded to a conviction, rendering the petition technically moot, the People have urged us to address the merits of the petition because the issue is one of continuing public interest which is likely to recur in the future. We agree that in light of the important questions raised, this court should exercise its discretion to render an opinion in this case despite its mootness. (Daly v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 132, 141 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 560 P.2d 1193 ]; Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Richard A. Glass Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 703 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 63 ].)

The respondent court has made a careful record in this case. That record reveals that the court’s decision to relieve counsel, undertaken with great reluctance, was an appropriate exercise of discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

Facts

Petitioner and three codefendants were…