People v. Lewis

California Supreme Court Jan 16, 1978 No. Crim. 20114Published

Before: Newman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court committed prejudicial error by denying the defendant's motion to relieve appointed counsel without providing the defendant an adequate opportunity to state the specific reasons for his dissatisfaction, as required by the Marsden rule.

Issues

Whether the trial court violated the Marsden rule by denying a motion to relieve counsel without allowing the defendant to fully state his reasons.
Whether the trial court's failure to permit the defendant to explain his reasons for requesting new counsel constituted prejudicial error.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“When trial courts proceed in such a manner they violate the Marsden rule.”

“Because the defendant might have catalogued acts and events beyond the observations of the trial judge to establish the incompetence of his counsel, the trial judge’s denial of the motion without giving defendant an opportunity to do so denied him a fair trial.”

Opinion

NEWMAN, J.

A trial court order of March 22, 1976, reads, “Defendant Lewis’ motion to relieve the Public Defender Mr. Lieman is heard and Denied.” On appeal Lewis contends that the denial was unjustified. We agree.

People

Marsden

(1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 [84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44] held that a defendant must be permitted to state the reasons why he believes a court-appointed counsel should be discharged. Accordingly we quote from the record here to ascertain whether the

Marsden

rule was observed:

“Mr. Lieman: Your Honor, Mr. Lewis would like to address the Court. The Court: All right. Proceed, Mr. Lewis. Defendant Lewis: Yes, Your Honor. The Court: However, bear in mind anything you say can be used against you in the case. Defendant Lewis: All right. At this time I would like to state that I am not satisfied with Mr. Lieman’s

[498]

services. I would also request that he be removed from handling my case and that a state appointed attorney would be appointed to represent me in this matter. He is not handling my case in the manner which I feel will vindicate my innocence.. ..”

There was no further discussion of the point until the court ruled as follows (italics added): “[A]s to your request to relieve Mr. Lieman, this Court is very cognizant of Mr. Lieman’s competence and his abilities and your request is not an unknown one, either, to the Court because it’s quite often that a person under accusations such as you have can become disenchanted with an attorney that’s handling their case. Defendant Lewis: Well— The Court: But the reason that an attorney is brought into the picture is because of his knowledge and because of his understanding of the situation, so at this time your request to discharge Mr. Lieman is denied. I see no reason whatsoever to do so because I know Mr. Lieman is an extremely competent attorney. Defendant Lewis:

Well, he is not handling my case, Your

People v. Lewis

AI Brief

NEWMAN, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief