Court Opinion

ID: 9619787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:33:19.381928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:44.599388
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I concur in the conclusion reached in the majority opinion and generally in the reasoning upon which it is based, as it appears to be in full accord with the views *749expressed by me in my dissenting opinion in People v. Dorman, 28 Cal.2d 846, 855 [172 P.2d 686]. However, in the Dorman ease there was no claim of a conflict of interest between the two defendants, the sole claim there being the right of defendant Smith to be represented by counsel of his own choice. Here the claim of conflict of interest does not appear to be of very great moment and the majority opinion does not point out wherein the defendant was prejudiced by the alleged conflict of interest between himself and the other defendant. However, defendant Robinson did express a desire to be represented by counsel of his own choice and Mr. Coviello expressed his willingness to withdraw as counsel for said defendant and permit him to employ other counsel. The court, however, denied these requests and refused to grant a continuance to enable defendant Robinson to obtain counsel of his own choice. Under the facts as disclosed by the majority opinion, it is my view that this constituted an abuse of discretion, because it had the effect of denying defendant Robinson an opportunity to employ counsel of his own choice.
For the reasons above stated and those expressed at length in my dissenting opinion in the Dorman case, supra, I am of the opinion that the ruling of the trial court was prejudicial to the rights of defendant Robinson and he should be granted a new trial.