Opinion ID: 2590549
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Withdrawal of Lead Counsel at Commencement of Second Trial

Text: On the morning the Adkins-Shy trial was about to commence, Morris Jones told the court that he would not be able to participate as defendant's counsel because the day before he had been appointed to the bench and was therefore no longer a practitioner of law. He also indicated that he had explained this to defendant. The court relieved Jones as counsel, designated Skyers as lead counsel, and appointed Ronald Higgins as second counsel. Defendant now contends the court erred in permitting Jones to withdraw under the circumstances in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. We find no error. Under the California Constitution, [a] judge of a court of record may not practice law.... (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 17; see In re Craig (1938) 12 Cal.2d 93, 96, 82 P.2d 442.) Since the trial court had no viable alternative, it had no obligation to conduct a hearing prior to relieving Jones. The contrary authorities cited by defendant all involved attorneys who were authorized to practice law but sought to withdraw for some collateral reason. Defendant speculates from the record that the court and counsel had some off-the-record discussion in his absence regarding Jones's judicial appointment and need to withdraw, and that his exclusion from this discussion violated his rights. Even assuming that such a discussion occurred, we find no prejudice because, as noted, the trial court was constitutionally foreclosed from requiring Jones to continue his participation.