People v. Pinson CA2/7

DISCUSSION

I. Marsden Motion

Pinson argues that the court failed to conduct a proper inquiry into an irreconcilable conflict between himself and counsel when it heard his motion to replace appointed counsel pursuant to Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118. We review the ruling on a Marsden motion for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1245 (Jones).) We have reviewed the motion and transcript of the hearing and find no abuse of discretion. Pinson filed a written motion seeking the replacement of his appointed counsel, Michael Morse. He alleged that Morse had failed to (1) investigate and prepare the case adequately; (2) include relevant information and an affidavit in the motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995; (3) request and receive full formal discovery; (4) vigorously raise the issue of discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence; and (5) provide mitigating evidence to obtain a lesser sentence. During the Marsden hearing, the trial court addressed each of these complaints in turn. With respect to the alleged failure to investigate and prepare the case adequately, Pinson was unable to identify any respect in which…