Opinion ID: 1312308
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Request for Cocounsel Status

Text: (6a) Similarly, we believe the court properly considered and denied defendant's request for cocounsel status. It is unclear from the record whether defendant, in fact, wanted to act as cocounsel. The record discloses defendant's confusion regarding his desire to act as cocounsel: THE COURT: I'd like you to tell me what you have in mind when you say you want to go cocounsel. [¶] THE DEFENDANT: Okay. I've been  I don't know if it's in the record;  but I've been  I have about three or four cases on top of this case in Colorado and Kansas. [¶] THE COURT: Yes. Keep your voice up. [¶] THE DEFENDANT: And each time I went to trial, I think my lawyers didn't represent me properly; and I think in order for me to get a proper defense, in order to get the lawyers to do what I say and what I feel are right on the things that I'm doing in my court procedures and trials and stuff, that I have to be in a position in order to, you know, ask them about things and tell them, you know, make sure that they do the things that ask them to do. [¶] But because if I'm not cocounsel, or if I'm not in a position where I can represent myself, they're not obligated to what I asked them to do. In the past they have  did  you know, things in trial procedures that, you know, that I asked them not to do; they didn't do things that I had asked them to do; and they lied to me about evidence; and they lied to me about different things in my trials. [¶] And as of this point I don't trust most attorneys, because of the fact that I have been convicted three times, you know; because of attorneys didn't represent me properly.... [¶] THE COURT: ... I think what you might be talking about is what we call stand-by counsel, which is where you are appointed to represent yourself and then you use what they call stand-by counsel. But I don't see the need for that.... [¶] THE DEFENDANT: Okay. Defendant's responses to the court's inquiries revealed he wished to retain control over tactical decisions that usually would be made exclusively by primary counsel. It appears, therefore, that defendant sought not cocounsel status, but primary counsel status. Even if we were to find the court's disposition of defendant's inquiry here amounted to a denial of cocounsel status, we would find no error. (7) A defendant has no absolute right to participate in the presentation of his case when he is represented by counsel. ( People v. Mattson (1959) 51 Cal.2d 777, 789 [336 P.2d 937].) Indeed, the decision whether to confer on a defendant cocounsel status is within the sound discretion of the trial court which should not permit a litigant both to have counsel and to actively participate in the conduct of the case ... unless the court on a substantial showing determines that in the circumstances of the case the cause of justice will thereby be served and that the orderly and expeditious conduct of the court's business will not thereby be substantially hindered, hampered or delayed. ( Id., at p. 797.) (6b) After reviewing the record, we fail to find defendant made the requisite substantial showing contemplated by Mattson, supra, 51 Cal.2d at page 797. Accordingly, we believe the trial court exercised proper discretion in refusing to grant him cocounsel status.