Opinion ID: 2612448
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conflict of Decisions

Text: In People v. Barnes, supra, 146 Cal. App.3d 663, 665-667 (hereafter Barnes ), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held that a criminal defendant's motion to relieve his privately retained counsel and appoint the public defender in his stead is governed by the same standard as a motion for substitution of one appointed counsel for another, i.e., the court must allow the defendant to explain his reasons and then should exercise judicial discretion. The court reasoned that when a defendant seeks appointment of the public defender, his motion is tantamount to a substitution of appointed counsel.... ( Id. at p. 666.) One year later, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, in People v. Stevens, supra, 156 Cal. App.3d 1119 (hereafter Stevens ), impliedly rejected Barnes ( id. at p. 1127, fn. 6) and held that an indigent criminal defendant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel when the trial court unjustifiably denied his request to relieve his volunteer attorney in favor of the public defender ( id. at pp. 1121, 1123). The court concluded, a defendant's constitutionally protected interest in obtaining counsel of his choice encompasses the right to discharge retained counsel regardless of financial ability to hire another attorney. Absent a proper finding of unwarranted disruption of the orderly processes of justice, a court may not force a defendant who timely requests substitution to go to trial represented by retained counsel he no longer trusts. ( Id. at p. 1128.) Subsequently, a panel of the Sixth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal in South v. Superior Court, supra, 188 Cal. App.3d 1055, 1060, rejected Stevens and adopted the Barnes approach, stating, We do not believe that a defendant's motion to discharge retained counsel ... should be decided in a vacuum.... [A] court must concern itself with who will be representing the defendant if present counsel is discharged. The court held that the defendant, who requested appointment of the public defender, bore the burden of showing that his relieved counsel's representation would substantially impair his right to counsel. ( Ibid. ) Finally, in the case at bar a different panel of the Sixth Appellate District held to the contrary, stating that where, as here, a criminal defendant brings a timely motion to discharge his retained attorney it is error to deny the motion on the grounds he has not demonstrated his attorney's incompetence. For the reasons given below, we adopt the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in this case and in Stevens, supra, 156 Cal. App.3d 1119. [2]