Opinion ID: 694914
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Motion to Substitute Counsel

Text: 13 We review for abuse of discretion the trial court's refusal to substitute counsel. United States v. Walker, 915 F.2d 480, 482 (9th Cir.1990). Because Martin's claim implicates the Sixth Amendment, we must determine whether the trial court conducted an adequate and fair hearing on his motion. Hudson v. Rushen, 686 F.2d 826, 829 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 916 (1983). [T]he state trial court's summary denial of a defendant's motion for new counsel without further inquiry violate[s] the Sixth Amendment. Id. (citing Brown v. Craven, 424 F.2d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.1970)). The court must conduct such inquiry as might ease the defendant's dissatisfaction, distrust, and concern. Id. In evaluating the trial court's denial, we consider a number of factors, including the timeliness of the motion, the adequacy of the court's inquiry and whether the conflict between defendant and his counsel was so great that it caused a total lack of communication, preventing an adequate defense. Id. 14 Martin asserts that he made several motions to substitute counsel and that each was denied without giving him a proper hearing as required by People v. Marsden, 465 P.2d 44 (Cal.1970). Upon reviewing the record, the magistrate found three instances where the court had ruled on a motion to relieve counsel. The first was a June 6, 1979 minute order issued by Judge Julius Leetham denying the motion. The second occurred that same day after the case had apparently been transferred to Judge Gordon Ringer. He, too, issued a minute order denying the motion. 15 On September 12, 1979, the trial court again considered a motion to substitute counsel. At this hearing, which apparently followed immediately after the court denied Martin's motion to proceed pro se, the trial court inquired into Martin's reasons for seeking new counsel. The court conducted the inquiry in the presence of the prosecution. Martin argues that this was error because such inquiry should be made in camera. California law does not require the exclusion of the prosecution during a Marsden hearing absent a timely request by the defendant unless information will be presented to which the prosecution is not entitled or which could conceivably lighten the prosecutor's burden of proving its case. People v. Dennis, 223 Cal.Rptr. 236, 241 (Ct.App.1986); People v. Madrid, 213 Cal.Rptr. 813, 815 (Ct.App.1985). The record does not indicate that Martin made a timely request or that he presented information that the prosecution was not otherwise entitled to receive. The decision to hold the hearing in front of the prosecution was therefore not error. 16 During the hearing, Martin indicated that he was concerned that his counsel had made up his mind about his guilt. The court questioned Martin's counsel about the conflict and concluded that his assertions were unfounded. The asserted conflict appears to be no more than the fact that Martin did not want to hear his attorney's advice concerning the case. The record does not support a finding that the conflict between Martin and his counsel was so great as to constitute a total lack of communication that would prevent adequate defense. See Walker, 915 F.2d at 483; Hudson, 686 F.2d at 831. Therefore, the district court's decision on this issue is affirmed.