People v. Reaves

Opinion

COMPTON, J.

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of the crime of first degree robbery. The jury also found that at the time of the commission of the offense he was armed with a deadly weapon and that he used a firearm. The trial court at the time of sentencing found sections 3024 and 12022 of the Penal Code inapplicable but did find that section 12022.5 (the use of a firearm) was applicable. Sentence was to state prison. Defendant appeals.

Defendant’s Motion for a Continuance on The Day of Trial Was Properly Denied

Defendant was arraigned on the information on August 30, 1973, and a public defender was appointed to represent him. A readiness conference was set for September 28, 1973, and trial was set for October 9, 1973. The readiness conference was held on the scheduled date. However, on

[855]

the date of trial the record reflects that the defendant moved to continue both the trial and the readiness conference for further investigation. Trial was thus continued to October 25. On that later date a similar motion by the defendant was granted and trial was continued to November 12, 1973. On November 12, on defendant’s motion, trial was continued to December 5. Again on December 5, on defendant’s motion, the matter was continued to January 16, 1974. On each of the above referenced dates, defendant was present with his counsel and the record reflects that he made no objection or complaint concerning the representation which he was receiving.

On the date set for trial defendant moved again for a continuance and this time announced that he wished to obtain private counsel. The trial court observed that both sides had previously announced ready for trial, that a number of continuances had previously been granted at defendant’s request, and thus denied the motion for continuance. Trial commenced.

The defendant in asking for yet another continuance offered no reasons why he desired different counsel although he had ample opportunity to do so, nor did he indicate that he was financially able to hire private counsel.

Since the public defender was appointed for the defendant at his initial arraignment we presume that he at that time indicated a lack of ability to hire private counsel. If during the ensuing five months, during which defendant made numerous appearances in court, he had developed the ability to hire private counsel or had some reason for wishing to discharge his appointed counsel, it was incumbent upon him to do so and bring the matter to the attention of the trial court. On the face of this record the trial court was justified in assuming that defendant was, at all stages, properly represented by appointed counsel, and that defendant lacked the ability to hire private counsel.