Court Opinion

ID: 9746117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:00:15.929581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:09.004875
License: Public Domain

TURNER, P. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree wholeheartedly with those portions of my colleagues’ conclusions that: the present case involves an issue of assignment of counsel, not relieving an attorney (Alexander v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 901, 914 [27 Cal.Rptr.2d 732]); resolution of the present petition is subject to the deferential abuse of discretion standard (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1099 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478]; People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975, 987 [275 Cal.Rptr. 191, 800 P.2d 547]; People v. Chavez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 334, 345 [161 Cal.Rptr. 762, 605 P.2d 401]; Harris v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 786, 799 [140 Cal.Rptr. 318, 567 P.2d 750]; Drumgo v. Superior Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 930, 935 [106 Cal.Rptr. 631, 506 P.2d 1007, 66 A.L.R.3d 984]); the appointment of a deputy public defender falls within the assignment of counsel language in Penal Code section 987.051; and standing alone, section 987.05 does not authorize a trial judge to assign someone *334other than the public defender at the time of the arraignment. I concur in the determination of my colleagues to dismiss the mandate petition as moot. However, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that concludes the respondent court abused its discretion in concluding that the public defender would not be available to try the present case within the statutorily mandated 60 days of the April 2, 1996, arraignment. I believe that when properly construed, the entire constitutional and statutory scheme is such that when an arraigning judge is faced with the facts presented in this case, a decision to find the public defender to be unavailable and appoint private counsel is within the scope of allowable judicial discretion.2
*335The exercise of discretion in this case is tested by the entire statutory and constitutional scheme pertinent to speedy trial rights and appointment of the public defender. In construing provisions of the Constitution and statutes an appellate court applies the following standard of review: “We begin with the fundamental rule that our primary task is to determine the lawmakers’ intent. [Citation.] In the case of a constitutional provision adopted by the voters, their intent governs. [Citations.] To determine intent, ‘ “The court turns first to the words themselves for the answer.” ’ [Citations.] ‘If the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature (in the case of a statute) or of the voters (in the case of a provision adopted by the voters).’ [Citation.]” (Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 798 [268 Cal.Rptr. 753, 789 P.2d 934]; accord, Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Orange County Employees Retirement System (1993) 6 Cal.4th 821, 826 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 148, 863 P.2d 218].) However, the literal meaning of a statute must be in accord with its purpose as our Supreme Court noted in Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 658-659 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 109, 863 P.2d 179], as follows: “We are not prohibited ‘from determining whether the literal meaning of a statute comports with its purpose or whether such a construction of one provision is consistent with other provisions of the statute. The meaning of a statute may not be determined from a single word *336or sentence; the words must be construed in context, and provisions relating to the same subject matter must be harmonized to the extent possible. [Citation.] Literal construction should not prevail if it is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the [statute.] . . .’ [Citation.]” In Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 [248 Cal.Rptr. 115, 755 P.2d 299], our Supreme Court added: “The intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act. [Citations.] An interpretation that renders related provisions nugatory must be avoided [citation]; each sentence must be read not in isolation but in the light of the statutory scheme [citation] . . . .” In evaluating the issues of statutory interpretation raised by the parties, an appellate court may not second-guess the wisdom of the policy decisions made by the voters. (Rhiner v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1213, 1226 [18 Cal.Rptr.2d 129, 848 P.2d 244]; Delaney v. Superior Court, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 805.)
Subject to the foregoing rules of constitutional and statutory interpretation, the petition should be denied because: of the adoption of Proposition 115 by the voters in the June 5, 1990, primary election; the respondent court had the duty to ensure the prompt trial of the present case; the respondent court had inherent power to control the proceedings; and the public defender was not available to try the present case within 60 days. The first pertinent body of constitutional and statutory law is Proposition 115. The preamble to Proposition 115 stated: “Section 1. (a) We the people of the State of California hereby find that the rights of crime victims are too often ignored by our courts and by our State Legislature, that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder, and that comprehensive reforms are needed in order to restore balance and fairness to our criminal justice system. [][] (b) In order to address these concerns and to accomplish these goals, we the people further find that it is necessary to reform the law as developed in numerous California Supreme Court decisions as set forth in the statutes of this state. These decisions and statutes have unnecessarily expanded the rights of accused criminals far beyond that which is required by the United States Constitution, thereby unnecessarily adding to the costs of criminal cases, and diverting the judicial process from its function as a quest for truth. [][] (c) The goals of the people in enacting this measure are to restore balance to our criminal justice system, to create a system in which justice is swift and fair, and to create a system in which violent criminals receive just punishment, in which crime victims and witnesses are treated with care and respect, and in which society as a whole can be free from the fear of crime in our homes, neighborhoods, and schools. [f] (d) With these goals in mind, we the people do hereby enact the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act.” (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen. Elec. (June 5, 1990) Text of Proposed Law, Prop. 115, p. 33.) As part of the initiative, *337the voters enacted article I, section 29 of the California Constitution which states, “In a criminal case, the People of the State of California have the right ... a speedy . . . trial.” Further, Proposition 115 enacted section 1049.5 which requires trials be commenced within 60 days of the arraignment absent a showing of good cause and which states: “In felony cases, the court shall set a date for trial which is within 60 days of the defendant’s arraignment in the superior court unless, upon a showing of good cause as prescribed in Section 1050, the court lengthens the time. If the court, after a hearing as prescribed in Section 1050, finds that there is good cause to set the date for trial beyond the 60 days, it shall state on the record the facts proved that justify its finding. A statement of facts proved shall be entered in the minutes.” As will be noted, section 1049.5 is directly pertinent to the determination of public defender availability in this case.
Moreover, when a case is set beyond the 60-day time period set forth in section 1049.5, the voters provided for expedited extraordinary writ review in section 1511 which states: “If in a felony case the superior court sets the trial beyond the period of time specified in Section 1049.5, in violation of Section 1049.5, or continues the hearing of any matter without good cause, and good cause is required by law for such a continuance, either party may file a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition in the court of appeal seeking immediate appellate review of the ruling setting the trial or granting the continuance. Such a petition shall have precedence over all other cases in the court to which the petition is assigned, including, but not limited to, cases that originated in the juvenile court. If the court of appeal grants a peremptory writ, it shall issue the writ and a remittitur three court days after its decision becomes final as to that court if such action is necessary to prevent mootness or to prevent frustration of the relief granted, notwithstanding the right of the parties to file a petition for review in the Supreme Court. When the court of appeal issues the writ and remittitur as provided herein, the writ shall command the superior court to proceed with the criminal case without further delay, other than that reasonably necessary for the parties to obtain the attendance of their witnesses. FjQ The Supreme Court may stay or recall the issuance of the writ and remittitur. The Supreme Court’s failure to stay or recall the issuance of the writ and remittitur shall not deprive the respondent or the real party in interest of its right to file a petition for review in the Supreme Court.”
Finally, in terms of the initiative, the Legislative Analyst’s discussion in the voter pamphlet for Proposition 115 indicated: the proposition made “numerous significant and complex changes in criminal law and in the judicial procedures that must be followed in criminal cases”; provided the “people of California with the right to ... a speedy . . . trial”; required *338trial judges “to assign felony cases only to defense attorneys who will be ready to proceed within specified time limits”; and required “felony trials to be set within 60 days of the defendant’s arraignment except upon a showing of good cause.” (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen. Elec. (June 5, 1990) p. 32.)
Apart from the provisions of Proposition 115, there are other provisions of law that are applicable to a determination as to whether there was an abuse of discretion in the present case. Section 1050 states: “The welfare of the people of the State of California requires that all proceedings in criminal cases shall be set for trial and heard and determined at the earliest possible time. To this end the Legislature finds that the criminal courts are becoming increasingly congested with resulting adverse consequences to the welfare of the people and the defendant. Excessive continuances contribute substantially to this congestion and cause substantial hardship to victims and other witnesses. Continuances also lead to longer periods of presentence confinement for those defendants in custody and the concomitant overcrowding and increased expenses of local jails. It is therefore recognized that the people, the defendant, and the victims and other witnesses have the right to an expeditious disposition, and to that end it shall be the duty of all courts and judicial officers and of all counsel, both for the prosecution and the defense, to expedite these proceedings to the greatest degree that is consistent with the ends of justice. In accordance with this policy, criminal cases shall be given precedence over, and set for trial and heard without regard to the pendency of, any civil matters or proceedings.” Rule 227.7 of the California Rules of Court provides that continuance motions in criminal cases are “disfavored.” Canon 3(B)(8) of the California Code of Judicial Conduct provides, “A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently.”
Moreover, California judges have inherent powers to control proceedings. Code of Civil Procedure section 177 provides that judges have the authority to “preserve and enforce order” in her or his presence when engaged in official duties. Code of Civil Procedure section 128 subdivision (a) states in part: “(a) Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: (1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence. [U (2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it, or before a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority. [‘jQ (3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers. . . . [^Q (5) To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto.” Our Supreme Court has described the inherent power of the judicial branch as follows: “We have *339often recognized the ‘inherent powers of the court... to insure the orderly administration of justice.’ (Hays v. Superior Court (1940) 16 Cal.2d 260, 264 . . . ; see also Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626, 635-636 . . . [discussing ‘supervisory or administrative powers which all courts possess to enable them to carry out their duties’]; Millholen v. Riley (1930) 211 Cal. 29, 33-34. . . .) Although some of these powers are set out by statute ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 128, subd. (a)), it is established that the inherent powers of the courts are derived from the Constitution (art. VI, § 1 [reserving judicial power to courts]; see Millholen, supra, 211 Cal. at p. 34; Rice v. Superior Court (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 81, 89 . . .), and are not confined by or dependent on statute (see, e.g., Bauguess, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 635-636; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 287 . . . , cf. James H. v. Superior Court (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 169, 175-175 . . . , [court has inherent power to hold competency hearing despite absence of express statutory authorization for such hearing].)” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 266-267 [279 Cal.Rptr. 576, 807 P.2d 418]; accord, Bloniarz v. Roloson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 143, 147-148 [74 Cal.Rptr. 285, 449 P.2d 221]; Lyons v. Superior Court (1955) 43 Cal.2d 755, 757-758 [278 P.2d 681]; Brydonjack v. State Bar (1929) 208 Cal. 439, 442 [281 P. 1018, 66 A.L.R. 1507].)
In my view, given the foregoing body of law and the facts in this case, the respondent court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Office of the Los Angeles County Public Defender was in this one case unavailable to represent defendant within the statutorily mandated time for trial. Section 987.2, subdivision (e)3 which, as my colleagues correctly note, is the provision of law which creates the duty to appoint the public defender in Los Angeles County provides for two exceptions. The first exception exists when the public defender is unavailable. Section 987.2, subdivision (e) states in part, “In the event that the public defender is unavailable and the county has created a second public defender and contracted with one or more responsible attorneys or with a panel of attorneys to provide criminal defense *340services for indigent defendants, and if the quality of representation provided by the second public defender is comparable to the quality of representation provided by the public defender, the court shall next utilize the services of the second public defender and then the services of the county-contracted attorneys prior to assigning any other private counsel.” (Italics added.) The second exception, which is contained in the third sentence of section 987.2, subdivision (e), involves the existence of a conflict of interest. The third sentence of section 987.2, subdivision (e) states, “Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to require the appointment of counsel in any case in which the counsel has a conflict of interest.” The present case is controlled by the first or unavailability exception to the requirement that the public defender be appointed.
The respondent court could reasonably conclude that the public defender would not be available. To begin with, no other member of the public defender’s office would be available to try the case. There is no dispute about that issue; defendant admits such. Further, the respondent court was obligated to set the case for trial within the 60 days. Section 1049.5 required the respondent court to set the case for trial “within 60 days of the defendant’s arraignment” in the absence of good cause. Our Supreme Court has described section 1049.5 as follows, “. . . § 1049.5 . . . which provides felony trials shall take place within 60 days of arraignment.” (Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 299 [279 Cal.Rptr. 592, 807 P.2d 434].) On another occasion, our Supreme Court described section 1049.5 as follows: “Section 1049.5 is added to the Penal Code to provide for a trial of felony cases within 60 days of arraignment unless good cause is shown (and stated on the record) for lengthening the time.” (Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 345 [276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077].) There is no issue concerning the absence of good cause, Mr. Swarth indicated he expected to try the case within the 60 days. Section 1049.5 was part of the Proposition 115 which the Legislative Analyst described as making “significant and complex changes in criminal law and in the judicial procedures that must be followed in criminal cases . . . .” Simply stated, this case was required by law to be tried within 60 days absent good cause which would permit trial beyond the statutory 60-day time period. There is not even any substantial evidence of good cause. Also, Mr. Swarth was assigned to try 21 cases to completion within the next 59 days. There was no evidence any of those cases were settleable without trial. There was no evidence a single case would be continued. In fact when asked how the cases would be tried, he responded, “But I’m ready to go. We’re going to try them boom, boom, boom.” When the respondent court calculated that the 21 cases could not be tried to completion within the 59-day time period, Mr. Swarth candidly admitted, “If that is your calculation, I’m not fast enough to do the math *341right now. So I cannot speak to that.” The respondent court then requested that Mr. Swarth determine if another deputy public defender could try the case within 60 days. Only after Mr. Swarth stated no other deputy public defender could try the case within the 60-day time limit did the respondent court make its final determination of unavailability and assign private counsel. It bears emphasis, defendant never offered to waive his right to have his trial commence within the 60-day time limit imposed by section 1382, subdivision (a)(2).
Given this record, I cannot find an abuse of discretion.4 This is not a case of a judge who relied on “numbers alone” to exercise discretion. Such a large number of cases could not possibly have been tried within 60 days which included weekends and the Memorial Day holiday. Despite given his full responsibility to do so, Mr. Swarth could not contradict the respondent court’s mathematical calculation which indicated that 21 felony trials could not competently, within the mandate of the United States and California Constitutions, be professionally conducted in 60 calendar days. Not a single other deputy public defender would be available to try the case—not a one. This scenario, when confronted by a highly experienced and knowledgeable judge who is a former criminal litigator, is not the utilization of numbers alone to make a decision. Rather, it is the exercise of judicial discretion. An *342abuse of discretion exists under the following circumstances: “That discretion, however, ' “is not a capricious or arbitrary discretion, but an impartial discretion, guided and controlled in its exercise by fixed legal principles. It is not a mental discretion, to be exercised ex gratia, but a legal discretion, to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice.” ’ [Citations.]” (Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 892, 898 [187 Cal.Rptr. 592, 654 P.2d 775]; accord, People v. Warner (1978) 20 Cal.3d 678, 682 [143 Cal.Rptr. 885, 574 P.2d 1237].) I cannot find the cautious and deliberate effort to comply with the statutory requirement that this case be tried within 60 days by ensuring that the public defender’s office have a lawyer who would be available was: “capricious or arbitrary”; discretion exercised “ex gratia”; a decision rendered adverse to the spirit of the law; or a ruling which impeded or defeated the ends of substantial justice. Contrary to defendant’s contention, that never happened.
For these reasons, I would deny the petition on the merits as well as on mootness grounds.
A petition for a rehearing was denied June 24, 1996, and petitioner’s application for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 25, 1996.

Penal Code section 987.05 provides: “In assigning defense counsel in felony cases, whether it is the public defender or private counsel, the court shall only assign counsel who represents, on the record, that he or she will be ready to proceed with the preliminary hearing or trial, as the case may be, within the time provisions prescribed in this code for preliminary hearings and trials, except in those unusual cases where the court finds that, due to the nature of the case, counsel cannot reasonably be expected to be ready within the prescribed period if he or she were to begin preparing the case forthwith and continue to make diligent and *334constant efforts to be ready. In the case where the time of preparation for preliminary hearing or trial is deemed greater than the statutory time, the court shall set a reasonable time period for preparation. In making this determination, the court shall not consider counsel’s convenience, counsel’s calendar conflicts, or counsel’s other business. The court may allow counsel a reasonable time to become familiar with the case in order to determine whether he or she can be ready. In cases where counsel, after making representations that he or she will be ready for preliminary examination or trial, and without good cause is not ready on the date set, the court may relieve counsel from the case and may impose sanctions upon counsel, including, but not limited to, finding the assigned counsel in contempt of court, imposing a fine, or denying any public funds as compensation for counsel’s services. Both the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel shall have a right to present evidence and argument as to a reasonable length of time for preparation and on any reasons why counsel could not be prepared in the set time.” Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

I also agree with my colleagues’ summary of what occurred before the respondent court on April 2, 1996. One point warrants emphasis and this relates to the accuracy of under-oath allegations appearing in the mandate petition. The verified petition, which was filed on April 9, 1996, in an effort to comply with rule 56(c) of the California Rules of Court, stated the following: “The court inquired whether Deputy Public Defender Swarth would be ready to try petitioner’s matter within 60 days of petitioner’s arraignment, in light of the 17 older cases in which Deputy Public Defender Swarth was counsel. This question was presumably asked pursuant to Penal Code section 987.05, although the court was not faced at that time with the obligation to appoint counsel since petitioner was then represented by the Public Defender. [cfn Deputy Public Defender Swarth replied that all of the cases to which the court had referred had been delayed for good cause, and not due to the unavailability of counsel. Moreover, some of the cases had already been set beyond a date 60 days after petitioner’s arraignment. Further, there were no cases set in the time period approximately 50 days after petitioner’s arraignment, when petitioner’s case would probably be tried. Thus, counsel advised the court that there were no cases which would interfere with his representation of petitioner, and that he would be both prepared and available to commence petitioner’s trial within 60 days. [<]Q Deputy Public Defender Swarth stated he would be willing to more fully discuss the status of each of the 17 cases to which the court had made reference, demonstrating why none of those cases would interfere with his being prepared to try petitioner’s matter within 60 days. The court refused to hear such a further explanation . . . .” As will be noted, the problem that has arisen relates to the latter under oath claim that Peter Swarth, the deputy public defender, had offered to provide background concerning the 21 pending cases and the respondent court refused to hear any explanation. As the presiding justice, I denied a stay request indicating in a brief order it was unclear whether there had been compliance with rule 56(c) of the California Rules of Court which requires a declaration detailing what occurred in the *335respondent court accompany the writ petition, unless a reporter’s transcript is contemporaneously filed with the writ petition. On April 12, 1996, in an effort to promptly clarify matters, a deputy public defender other than the one who verified the petition filed an under-oath declaration. The April 12,1996, declaration explained that the description of what occurred in the respondent court on April 2, 1996, in the body of the verified petition was intended to comply with rule 56(c) of the California Rules of Court. The under-oath declaration also added several minor points to what was related in the verified petition so as to fully comply with rule 56(c) of the court rules. Later, on April 16, 1996, the reporter’s transcript of the April 2, 1996, proceedings was filed with this court. That transcript revealed that the respondent court exercised its discretion based on 21 pending cases, not the 17 adverted to in the body of the petition verified under oath by a deputy public defender. More importantly, the reporter’s transcript reveals that the respondent court never cut off Mr. Swarth or otherwise refused to hear an explanation concerning the 21 cases. At oral argument, the question of why the verified petition which was intended to serve as the California Rules of Court rule 56(c) declaration differed from the transcript was raised. The deputy public defender candidly indicated it was an inadvertent error made in the haste to prepare and file the petition. I am prepared, given the totality of the circumstances and the commendable candor of the deputy public defender at oral argument, to accept the explanation. However, verified writ petitions are filed under oath and their factual contents, particularly when presented in an effort to comply with rule 56(c) of the court rules, must be entirely without exception the complete truth. There are no exceptions to that rule, none. Practicing law is an uncompromisingly difficult profession. Conflicting demands of time and obligations to clients batter the personal and professional lives of lawyers. However, the press of business is never an excuse for inaccuracies in a lawyer’s declaration. I am completely satisfied what occurred here was an inadvertence by two conscientious professionals, not an effort to mislead the court. If I thought otherwise, then professional, financial, and other legal sanctions may have been in order.

Section 987.2, subdivision (e) states: “In a county of the first, second, or third class, the court shall first utilize the services of the public defender to provide criminal defense services for indigent defendants. In the event that the public defender is unavailable and the county has created a second public defender and contracted with one or more responsible attorneys or with a panel of attorneys to provide criminal defense services for indigent defendants, and if the quality of representation provided by the second public defender is comparable to the quality of representation provided by the public defender, the court shall next utilize the services of the second public defender and then the services of the county-contracted attorneys prior to assigning any other private counsel. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to require the appointment of counsel in any case in which the counsel has a conflict of interest. In the interest of justice, a court may depart from that portion of the procedure requiring appointment of the second public defender or a county-contracted attorney after making a finding of good cause and stating the reasons therefor on the record.”

There is decisional authority concerning the power to remove counsel who cannot try the case at the appointed time. For example, in People v. Dowell (1928) 204 Cal. 109, 113-114 [266 P. 807], section 1050, as it was in effect at that time (Stats. 1927, ch. 600, § 1, p. 1036) required that the case be tried within 30 days of the entry of the defendant’s plea. In this regard, it is similar to current section 1049.5. The Supreme Court held: the provisions of then section 1050 created a duty to set the case for trial within the statutorily mandated 30 days; there was “no merit whatsoever” to the contention that other counsel, who was properly prepared, should not be required to try the case; and the absence of the initially retained attorney did not injuriously affect any substantial rights of the defendant. (204 Cal. at pp. 113-114.) Dowell is pertinent because it holds that a time period specified in the Penal Code for trying a case creates a duty to do so and that no abuse of discretion occurs when retained counsel was relieved. Further, Court of Appeal decisions have upheld orders relieving defense counsel because of an inability to try the case at the appointed time. (E.g., People v. Strozier (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 55, 62 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 362] [trial court had discretion to remove privately retained counsel after “numerous continuances”]; Maniscalco v. Superior Court (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 846, 849-850 [285 Cal.Rptr. 795] [injury to defense counsel warranted removal after seven year delay in bringing the case to trial]; Stevens v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 932, 936-937 [244 Cal.Rptr. 94] [appointed counsel’s trial schedule caused repeated delays]; People v. Lucev (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 551, 556-557 [233 Cal.Rptr. 222] [one-and-one-half-year delay after arraignment because of congested calendar of deputy public defender].) Each of these cases involves removal of counsel rather than the statutorily mandated duty of the trial court subject to the two exceptions described in the body of this dissenting opinion to appoint the public defender. Nonetheless, they are relevant insofar as they relate the power of a court when counsel is unavailable to relieve the attorney. None of the foregoing decisional authority undercuts the power of an arraigning judge to refuse to appoint a deputy public defender when she or he will be unable to try the case within the statutorily mandated period in section 1049.5.