People v. Godfrey CA3

Filed 1/22/14 P. v. Godfrey CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073233

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM036235)

v.

ALEXANDER SCOTT GODFREY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Alexander Scott Godfrey was charged with first degree burglary and an allegation that a person other than defendant or an accomplice was present. At a meeting before trial, defense counsel cursed at defendant and left the room. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to substitute counsel, and a jury found him guilty of the charge and found the allegation that a person other than defendant or an accomplice was present was true. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to substitute counsel because his counsel’s actions created an irreconcilable conflict likely to result in ineffective representation. We disagree and affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because the facts underlying the charges are not relevant to this appeal, we do not discuss them. After defendant was charged, Robert Radcliffe, a public defender, was appointed to represent him. Prior to trial, Radcliffe provided defendant with a copy of the discovery received from the district attorney, “but there were some pages missing.” The discovery provided to defendant included a copy of the “narrative, which is the police officer’s description of interviews and evidence that’s attained [sic]” but did not include any of the pages with confidential information. A week and one-half before the trial date, defendant met with Radcliffe at the jail “to discuss [his] case.” During the visit, defendant “questioned” Radcliffe about “some omissions in the discovery” provided to him “because it seem[ed] like [his] discovery [was] missing a lot of the pages.” Radcliffe told defendant he could not give him the remaining discovery because it contained personal information such as witnesses’ addresses and phone numbers. Defendant told counsel “that [he knew Radcliffe] work[ed] for the Court and the [district attorney] and the judge” and was “not fighting for him because [Radcliffe] was in cahoots with the district attorney.” In response, Radcliffe “flipped [defendant] off” and said, “Fuck you. Fuck you, you piece of shit.” Radcliffe then “walked out of the visiting room.” Defendant requested a new attorney the following day. At the Marsden1 hearing, defendant provided the court with a letter stating he was “not getting adequate counsel.” The letter explained how Radcliffe had cursed at defendant and that defendant felt “the incident” “was not conducted in a professional manner” and “[wa]s a violation of the