Opinion ID: 2598792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Conduct Extensive Marsden Hearing

Text: In a related argument, defendant contends the court erred in failing to hold a more extensive Marsden hearing to inquire regarding a possible breakdown in defendant's relationship with his counsel resulting from counsel's advice not to testify at the penalty phase. In Marsden, we held that a criminal defendant has a right to substitute counsel on a proper showing that his constitutional right to counsel would otherwise be substantially impaired. ( People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 123, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44.) We also held that the defendant is entitled to present evidence or argument on the matter of substitute counsel, assuming he has clearly indicated that he wants a substitute. ( Id. at pp. 123-124, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44; see People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 157, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150; People v. Lucky (1988) 45 Cal.3d 259, 281, fn. 8, 247 Cal.Rptr. 1, 753 P.2d 1052.) The Attorney General correctly observes that defendant failed to question his counsel's competence or to request a hearing on the matter. Our review of the record shows only that before testifying, defendant was adamant about doing so, contrary to his counsel's advice, without explaining why, and without requesting new counsel or a hearing on the matter. Only after testifying, and after all penalty phase evidence had been presented, did defendant write a letter to the court complaining of a conflict of interest with his counsel arising from some phone calls defendant claimed he never made, and accusing counsel of not providing him with paperwork involving some witnesses, matters not shown to be critical to the defense. In this letter, defendant also indicated that counsel seemed uninterested in reading defendant's own notes taken from the preliminary hearing transcript, that counsel conferred with defendant only at court, and that defendant was extremely exhausted both mentally and physically and unable to follow all of the trial testimony. The trial court responded to the foregoing letter by telling defendant that disagreements with counsel over trial tactics often occur, and that nothing in defendant's letter afforded a ground for relief, although he could raise such matters in a motion for new trial at the conclusion of the case. No such motion was filed. Defendant now asserts that the trial court erred in failing to hold an additional hearing to explore whether to order a substitution of counsel prior to presentation of closing arguments. He relies primarily on the fact that defense counsel indicated he opposed defendant's decision to testify, having no knowledge of the nature of his proposed testimony, but we have held that such a conflict regarding tactical matters neither justifies substitution of counsel nor signals a fundamental breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. ( People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 728-729, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203, 976 P.2d 754; People v. Lucky, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 282, 247 Cal.Rptr. 1, 753 P.2d 1052.) As for the vague allegations in defendant's letter, at most they reflect a difference of opinion over trial tactics and some generalized complaints regarding counsel's performance, rather than a request for new counsel based on specific facts showing a deterioration of the attorney-client relationship. (See People v. Padilla (1995) 11 Cal.4th 891, 926-927, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 426, 906 P.2d 388; People v. Lucky, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pp. 281-283, 247 Cal.Rptr. 1, 753 P.2d 1052.) We conclude the court did not err in failing to hold a more extensive Marsden hearing at close of trial.