Opinion ID: 1165460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: deprivation of counsel of defendant's choice

Text: (4) The right to effective assistance of counsel (U.S. Const., 6th and 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15) encompasses the right to retain counsel of one's choice. People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 86 [151 Cal. Rptr. 625, 588 P.2d 765].) (5) Though entitlement to representation by a particular attorney is not absolute ( People v. Crovedi (1966) 65 Cal.2d 199, 207 [53 Cal. Rptr. 284, 417 P.2d 868]), the state should keep to a necessary minimum its interference with the individual's desire to defend himself in whatever manner he deems best, using any legitimate means within his resources  and ... that desire can constitutionally be forced to yield only when it will result in significant prejudice to the defendant himself or in a disruption of the orderly processes of justice unreasonable under the circumstances of the particular case ( id., at p. 208). This court repeatedly has applied those principles. In Crovedi a trial was recessed on its fourth day because defense counsel suffered a heart attack. His partner sought a continuance to the time, two months later, when he was expected to be able to resume trial. Instead, two weeks after recess the court appointed the partner as counsel and ordered resumption of trial one week later. Defendant tried unsuccessfully to retain another experienced attorney, who told him that preparation would take at least four weeks. Trial resumed over the protest of both the defendant and the appointed partner. This court held that the circumstances of this case did not justify the trial court's refusal to permit defendant to be represented by counsel of his own choice, and that therefore that refusal constituted a denial of due process of law. ( Ibid. ) Why? (1) The defendant made diligent efforts to retain experienced substitute counsel. (2) Continuance until original counsel could return would not have been unreasonable since defendant could then be tried with a codefendant. (3) Concerns about convenience of witnesses were unjustified. In People v. Byoune (1966) 65 Cal.2d 345 [54 Cal. Rptr. 749, 420 P.2d 221] defendant was charged with grand theft; the public defender was appointed to represent him. Two months later, on the eve of trial, a count was added charging robbery. Defendant sought continuance to retain counsel with funds to be furnished by a relative. The request was denied; he was tried and convicted. The conviction was reversed for denial of continuance. The added charge justifed new assertion of the right to retain counsel, and no circumstances warranted limitation of the right in the interests of efficient judicial administration. ( Id., at p. 348.) People v. Holland, supra, 23 Cal.3d 77 held that defendant was deprived of his right to counsel when he was compelled to plead guilty or go to trial prior to enforcement of his adjudicated right to return of money seized on his arrest, which he had intended to use for retaining counsel. (See also People v. Vermouth (1974) 42 Cal. App.3d 353 [116 Cal. Rptr. 675].) (6) Here, defendant says he was denied his right to counsel by being denied a continuance to find a replacement for Sutton, who withdrew after being retained to try the case. The Attorney General contends that defendant's chosen counsel was Watkins, who represented him from the time of arrest, who he agreed could remain his counsel when Sutton withdrew, and with whom there is no indication he had any disagreement. Defendant's answer (No) to the question whether he objected to Sutton's withdrawing and leaving Watkins as counsel of record is insufficient to nullify Watkins' showing in the motions that defendant had retained her not to try the case but to assist a more experienced trial attorney in that task. The arrangement was particularly appropriate in a capital case. (See Pen. Code, § 1095 [If the offense charged is punishable with death, two counsel on each side may argue the cause]; People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 285-288 [168 Cal. Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149]; Keenan v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 424 [180 Cal. Rptr. 489, 640 P.2d 108].) Watkins presumably spoke for her client when she declared to the court her judgment that she was too inexperienced to take charge of defending him at trial and wished to obtain a replacement for Sutton. Thus in fact it seems clear she was not defendant's choice for trial counsel. Even if defendant's wishes were not clear, Watkins' statements at least raised enough doubt to preclude the court's inferring, without investigation, that she was his choice as sole trial counsel. The Attorney General correctly points out that her professed shortcomings in themselves would not have barred defendant's relying solely on her for defense. ( Smith v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 547 [68 Cal. Rptr. 1, 440 P.2d 65] [trial court erred in discharging defendant's chosen counsel for incompetency].) Most of her statements, however, were made outside the defendant's presence, either in chambers or in written motions. If the denial of continuance was based on unwillingness to accept counsel's representation of her client's preference for a substitute principal trial attorney, the court was required at least to ascertain that defendant's choice of Watkins was made with knowledge of the questions she had raised about her ability to provide representation. Such an inquiry, prescribed in Pierce v. United States (D.C. 1979) 402 A.2d 1237, seems indistinguishable in principle from examination to assure that a defendant who requests self-representation understands its pitfalls ( Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 835 [45 L.Ed.2d 562, 581-582, 95 S.Ct. 2525]; People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 128 [137 Cal. Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187]); and it is analogous to warning jointly represented codefendants to consider whether they have conflicting interests that would make separate representation desirable ( People v. Cook (1975) 13 Cal.3d 663, 672, fn. 7 [119 Cal. Rptr. 500, 532 P.2d 148]). Absent that inquiry the court should have accepted Watkins' representation that her client had retained Sutton because he wanted his trial to be handled by counsel more experienced than she, and that Sutton's withdrawal had left defendant without counsel of his choice. Further, there was no showing to justify denying defendant a continuance to obtain counsel. It does not appear that either Sutton's withdrawal or Watkins' unwillingness to proceed alone stemmed from any desire to delay trial. (See People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647, 655 [63 Cal. Rptr. 371, 433 P.2d 163] [disapproving claim of right to appear in propria persona made for purpose of delay]; rule 6-101(1), Rules Prof. Conduct [knowledge that one lacks skills may require associating another lawyer].) There was neither lack of diligence in seeking a replacement nor undue delay in apprising the court of the situation and seeking continuance. No prospect of possibly impairing efficient judicial administration appeared that was sufficient to overcome defendant's interest in obtaining counsel of his choice. As a matter of law there was good cause to grant continuance for that purpose. (Pen. Code, § 1050; People v. Crovedi, supra, 65 Cal.2d 199; People v. Byoune, supra, 65 Cal.2d 345.) Deprivation of defendant's right to defend with counsel of his choice deprived him of due process and requires reversal regardless of whether in fact he had a fair trial. ( People v. Byoune, supra, 65 Cal.2d 345 [reversing on that ground though it was undisputed that counsel conducted a competent defense]; People v. Crovedi, supra, 65 Cal.2d 199, 205.) Accordingly, the judgment is reversed.