Opinion ID: 2594735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Propriety of Trial Court's Actions

Text: When a criminal defendant seeks substitution of counsel on the ground that appointed counsel is providing inadequate representation, a trial court must give the defendant an opportunity to explain the reasons for the request. (See, e.g., People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 854, 251 Cal.Rptr. 227, 760 P.2d 423; People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at pp. 123-125, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44.) Although no formal motion is necessary, there must be at least some clear indication by defendant that he wants a substitute attorney. ( People v. Lucky (1988) 45 Cal.3d 259, 281, fn. 8, 247 Cal.Rptr. 1, 753 P.2d 1052.) Here, defendant did not do that. As just discussed, at both the March 13 and March 20, 1987, hearings, defendant expressed in no uncertain terms to the trial court his desire to act as his own attorney. And at the March 20 hearing, defendant presented the court a written request for self-representation. When defendant at the March 13 hearing made a fleeting reference to dissatisfaction with counsel because he was not getting a defense, the trial court pointed out that the case had not yet proceeded to trial. When the court suggested putting the matter over a week to give defendant and his counsel a chance to discuss the matter, defendant insisted that regardless of anything, I am going to go pro per, adding I have decided already. Given defendant's insistence on self-representation, the trial court was under no obligation to conduct an inquiry into any dissatisfaction defendant might have with his appointed counsel so as to necessitate substitution of counsel.