P.

FACTS

In People v. Erazo (May 18, 2012, G045542 [nonpub. opn.]), we conditionally reversed the judgment after the jury convicted Erazo of committing forcible and nonforcible lewd acts on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1); § 288, subd. (a)). We accepted the Attorney General’s concession, and agreed with Erazo, the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in denying Erazo’s request to discharge retained counsel. We directed the trial court “to conduct a hearing at which the court shall determine Erazo’s May 12, 2011, request to discharge retained counsel in the light of the standard articulated in [People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975 (Ortiz)] and related cases. If the court determines Erazo was entitled to discharge counsel, the court shall set the case for retrial. If the court determines Erazo was not entitled to discharge counsel, the court shall reinstate the judgment.” The trial court conducted the hearing on November 2, 2012. The trial court explained events that existed on the date of Erazo’s request: “Both counsel answered ready for this trial on May 11[, 2011] in Department C5. Shortly, and by that I mean by an hour, hour and a half thereafter, they…