Opinion ID: 2631133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Request for Telephone Privileges

Text: Before trial, at defendant's request, the presiding criminal judge ordered that defendant be allowed to meet with the defense investigators. But the presiding judge denied defendant's request for toll-free telephone calls to defense counsel, noting that defense counsel and the defense investigators all accepted collect calls. Thereafter, the presiding judge issued three successive orders permitting defendant to make toll-free telephone calls to persons other than his attorneys and investigators to gather information for his defense. Each of these orders was in effect for about 45 days, and each had expired before trial. In the trial court, defense counsel sought an order permitting defendant to make telephone calls to the defense team after the start of his trial. The court declined to rule on the request, informing counsel that court policy required that such motions be presented to the presiding criminal judge. Nothing further regarding this matter appears in the record. Notably, defense counsel never sought an order from the presiding judge granting defendant telephone access after trial started. Defendant now contends the trial court's refusal to issue an order permitting him to telephone his attorneys and investigators after the start of the trial interfered with his right to counsel and deprived him of due process under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and under article I, sections 15 and 16 of the California Constitution. We disagree. Defendant had ample opportunity to consult with his attorneys in court during his trial. Nothing suggests defendant's appointed counsel lacked resources for investigation and the means to present a defense. ( People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1001, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044.) Under these circumstances, defendant has not shown any deprivation of his right to assist counsel in preparing his defense.