People v. Lane CA4/1

Filed 6/25/24 P. v. Lane CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083331

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN423383)

TALAL HANSEAN LANE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel F. Link and James E. Simmons Jr., Judges. Affirmed. Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers and Vincent P. LaPietra, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Talal Hansean Lane guilty of driving under the influence of drugs causing injury. During a pre-trial hearing, the trial court denied

Lane’s motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) to substitute appointed counsel. We resolve this matter by memorandum opinion and affirm. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851-854.) We review the denial of a Marsden motion for abuse of discretion. (See People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696 (Smith).) “[T]he decision whether to permit a defendant to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney during the trial is within the discretion of the trial court, and a defendant has no absolute right to more than one appointed attorney.” (Marsden, 2 Cal.3d at p. 123.) Relief is available when appointed counsel fails to provide “adequate representation” or defendant and counsel have “such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result.” (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 854.) We discern four arguments by Lane. First, at the Marsden hearing Lane contended counsel did not communicate with him until two weeks before trial. Lane and counsel agreed they had steady communication during the two weeks preceding trial, but disagreed about the level of communication in the months prior. Lane claimed counsel would not return his calls. However, counsel informed the court that he made himself “very accessible” to Lane by regularly answering his calls or calling him back the same day, and “responding to his emails.” The court explained to Lane that he could expect adequate legal representation whether or not he received individualized attention from his appointed counsel. Although Lane interprets the court’s comment to mean that he could not expect “real representation” because his attorney was appointed rather than retained, we disagree. Rather, the court accurately indicated that an