People v. Rahman CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying him the opportunity to explain the basis for his Marsden request. The People concede error and join defendant’s request to remand the matter for a Marsden hearing.

2 “Marsden holds that the trial court must afford the defendant an opportunity to express the specific reasons why he believes he is not being adequately represented by his current counsel when he makes a request for the appointment of new counsel.” (People v. Olivencia (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1400.) “Although no formal motion is necessary, there must be ‘at least some clear indication by defendant that he [or she] wants a substitute attorney.’ ” (People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 157, quoting People v. Lucky (1988) 45 Cal.3d 259, 281, fn. 8.) At the hearing on the violation of probation, defense counsel stated defendant “wishes to change his public defender if he can.” This was a clear request for a substitute attorney. The trial court did not respond to, or inquire into, this request. Defendant was entitled to an opportunity to explain the specific reasons he felt his current attorney was not adequately representing him. He was not given that…