Opinion ID: 1165460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: denial of continuance to obtain counsel

Text: Nancy Watkins represented defendant from arrest through trial. Codefendant had separate counsel. At the joint preliminary hearing on May 24, a month after arrest, Attorney Jamie Sutton appeared and stated that two days earlier he had been retained by defendant as cocounsel to take over the preliminary hearing trial aspects of the case. Sutton's continuance motion for time to prepare was denied as untimely; and the hearing proceeded, with Sutton cross-examining and making objections for defendant. Watkins participated less extensively than Sutton. On July 6 in superior court Sutton filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, attaching a declaration of June 28 that [i]rreconcilable differences and conflicts had arisen with defendant making it impossible for the declarant to effectively and properly represent [him] and that Ms. Watkins will remain as counsel of record. The motion was granted at a July 12 hearing. [1] The transcript does not indicate the presence of any lawyer. The court informed defendant that Sutton had moved to withdraw, leaving Watkins as the remaining counsel, and asked defendant if he had any objection. He answered No; the motion was granted. The minutes state that both Sutton and Watkins attended the hearing, but Watkins on July 24 denied in open court that she had been present or been given notice. On July 31 in open court she stated that she had heard indirectly, on July 9 or 10, that Sutton was withdrawing but that from her client she learned of the actual withdrawal on July 14. At a discovery hearing on July 19, Watkins sought continuance of pretrial and trial, previously set for July 24 and 31. She stated that her cocounsel had withdrawn and that she had just been served with codefendant's motions and felt unable to prepare for both them and a trial including the death penalty phase. The court told her to file whatever motion she deemed appropriate. Next day she filed a motion, to be heard July 24, amplifying her courtroom statements and asking for a continuance to mid-September. At the July 24 pretrial hearing the court said it had read and considered the motion and Discussed the matter with counsel. Watkins stated [f]or the record that her motion was based on (1) withdrawal of former co-counsel who was expected to try the case, (2) my inexperience, which has been outlined to the court in chambers, and (3) her responsibility for motions. She also stated she had diligently searched and continue to search for someone to come in and assist me on this. The court denied continuance. Counsel's statements in chambers, immediately before that hearing, are set forth in a settled statement. (1-3) (See fn. 2.) Only the judge and defense counsel were present. [2] Codefendant's attorney stated he considered Watkins too inexperienced and incompetent to try such a serious case and that he had agreed to represent codefendant on the explicit understanding that a more experienced attorney would be retained for defendant. Watkins then came into chambers and explained that neither she nor defendant had intended that she try the case, that she was too inexperienced to do so, and that Sutton had been given responsibility for trial, with her role limited to law and motion work, pretrial, and to providing legal research and back-up assistance during trial. She said she had graduated from George Washington Law School in May 1975 and been admitted in California in June 1976. She had handled one misdemeanor trial for resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148) and had commenced a robbery trial that was dismissed when the complainant failed to identify her client. Her only other trial experience was in a law school clinical program, trying a petty theft case. When she learned of Sutton's withdrawal she unsuccessfully sought a replacement, interviewing three attorneys for at least half a day each. Because she thought she would not be trying the case she has only recently begun trial preparation. Being inexperienced, she needed more time to find a competent replacement as trial counsel. When the case was called on July 31, Watkins responded she was not ready for trial and filed a new motion for continuance with an attached declaration reiterating what she had said in chambers on July 24. [3] The judge denied the motion, remarking that it was the same motion denied earlier. Codefendant's counsel then joined in the motion for the record, saying that Watkins' lack of preparedness can only accrue to the disadvantage of my client. The prosecution expressed no opposition to a continuance; there was no indication that it would have led to unavailability or inconvenience of any witness or in administrative difficulties. Waivers by both defendants of time for trial were attached to the motion filed July 20.