Williams v. Superior Court

*324 Opinion

Defendant and petitioner Michael Williams, also known as Michael Antoine Price, challenges an order of the respondent court refusing to appoint the Los Angeles County Public Defender to represent him. We hold that a trial court is required to appoint the public defender to represent an indigent defendant when the public defender is “available,” meaning that the public defender can be ready for trial and in court on the designated trial date. In determining the public defender’s availability, the court may either rely on the public defender’s representation that he or she is available, or may elicit additional information from counsel which will aid the court in making that determination. A finding of unavailability, however, may not be based solely upon the number and age of the public defender’s pending caseload where counsel represents it will not interfere with his or her trial readiness. Penal Code section 987.05 allows a court to impose substantial sanctions for counsel’s failure to be ready, without good cause, as initially represented to the court.

Factual and Procedural History

Defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by an ex-felon (§ 12021,…

I agree wholeheartedly with those portions of my colleagues’ conclusions that: the present case involves an issue of assignment of counsel, not relieving an attorney (Alexander v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 901, 914 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 732 ]); resolution of the present petition is subject to the deferential abuse of discretion standard (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1099 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516 , 906 P.2d 478 ]; People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975, 987 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 191 , 800 P.2d 547 ]; People v. Chavez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 334, 345 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 605 P.2d 401 ]; Harris v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 786, 799 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 318 , 567 P.2d 750 ]; Drumgo v. Superior Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 930, 935 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 506 P.2d 1007 , 66 A.L.R.3d 984 ]); the appointment of a deputy public defender falls within the assignment of counsel language in Penal Code section 987.05 1 ; and standing alone, section 987.05 does not authorize a trial judge to assign someone *334 other than the public defender at the time of the arraignment. I concur in the determination of my colleagues to dismiss the mandate petition as moot. However, I respectfully dissent from that…

No appearance for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

GODOY PEREZ, J.

Defendant and petitioner Michael Williams, also known as Michael Antoine Price, challenges an order of the respondent court refusing to appoint the Los Angeles County Public Defender to represent him. We hold that a trial court is required to appoint the public defender to represent an indigent defendant when the public defender is "available," meaning that the public defender can be ready for trial and in court on the designated trial date. In determining the public defender's availability, the court may either rely on the public defender's representation that he or she is available, or may elicit additional information from counsel which will aid the court in making that determination. A finding of unavailability, however, may not be based solely upon the number and age of the public defender's pending caseload where counsel represents it will not interfere with his or her trial readiness. Penal Code section 987.05 allows a court to impose substantial sanctions for counsel's failure to be ready, without good cause, as initially represented to the court. [1]

Defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by…