Opinion ID: 2520047
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: February 26, 1992 Hearing

Text: On February 24, 1992, defendant filed a 16-page handwritten Marsden motion claiming that he was entering a conflict of interest with his counsel. He claimed that his counsel had ex-parte with D.A., that there were numerous witnesses to be interviewed, that he had not seen his attorney as often as he had requested, that counsel has made false statements to my relatives, that his attorney had not filed certain motions, that counsel has been representing me on two other cases, and no motions [have] been declared, and that defendant had not met with the private investigator retained by his counsel. Two days later, on February 26, the court held a hearing outside the presence of the district attorney. The court informed defendant that it had read his motion and asked defendant if he had any additional facts supporting his motion or if there is anything further that you wish to tell the court that's not contained in your motion? Defendant informed the court that he believed his counsel only began investigating the case because defendant informed counsel that he wanted a Marsden hearing. He reiterated complaints about counsel's performance that were raised in his brief and in his previous Marsden motion. The court asked defendant whether his attorney had contacted any witnesses to the 1989 shooting, and defendant stated that he believed that his attorney had not. In response, counsel explained that he had investigated whether there were witnesses who heard the shots being fired. He noted, however, that this case was not brought until 1991, whereas the murder had occurred in 1989. As a result, it was difficult for neighbors to remember if they had heard shots. Counsel indicated that he had filed a motion under section 995 to dismiss the special circumstance allegation. Counsel stated that he found defendant's request for an identification expert to be meritless. Counsel acknowledged that he had discussed the case with the prosecutor out of defendant's presence, but that he did not believe such discussions were improper. He reassured the court that he was diligently working on the case and that he was prepared. The court then gave defendant a chance to respond. Defendant argued that counsel had just begun locating potential penalty phase witnesses in Mexico and Texas and that he did not believe there was sufficient time to locate such witnesses. Trial counsel responded that he recently learned of such witnesses and that he had subsequently retained an investigator to interview several witnesses. The court denied the Marsden motion. After defendant inquired as to the reasons for the denial, the court replied, There are no grounds that have been articulated to the court. The court has heard the evidence, heard your argument.