Opinion
H044739
11-27-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GUADALUPE RENTERIA JAIMES, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1503197)
Defendant Guadalupe Jaimes contends the trial court erred by denying his request to replace appointed counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. Finding no abuse of discretion, we will affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged with kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a)); attempting to dissuade a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1)); and possessing for sale marijuana and methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11359, 11378). He pleaded no contest to kidnapping and the marijuana charge. In exchange, the District Attorney agreed to recommend that defendant be sentenced to 364 days in county jail to run concurrent with a federal prison term he was serving, and to seek dismissal of the remaining counts.
At sentencing, defendant told the court he wanted to withdraw his plea because his appointed counsel had not explained the consequences of being convicted of kidnapping, a strike offense. The trial court conducted a hearing under the procedure required by People v. Marsden, supra, to determine whether defendant's attorney should be replaced for providing ineffective assistance. After allowing defendant to explain why he was dissatisfied with his representation and then considering counsel's response, the court denied defendant's request for a new attorney and reset the matter for sentencing. At the continued sentencing hearing, defendant again asked to replace his attorney. The trial court conducted another hearing at which defendant expressed complaints about how he had been represented. The court denied the request for new counsel, denied the request to withdraw the plea, and sentenced defendant as previously agreed. Defendant filed this appeal after obtaining a certificate of probable cause.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred in two ways when it denied his requests to replace appointed counsel: the court did not conduct an adequate inquiry to ascertain whether there were grounds to replace his attorney; and new counsel should have been appointed regardless, to represent defendant on the motion to withdraw his plea.
Though the constitutional right to assistance of counsel is not a right to counsel of one's choice, it does require replacement of an appointed attorney in certain circumstances. (People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118, 123.) Appointed counsel must be replaced if he or she has provided inadequate representation or has a conflict of interest likely to result in ineffective representation. (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696.) In determining whether that standard is met the trial court cannot rely solely on in court observations; it must allow the defendant to explain the reasons for the dissatisfaction with counsel. (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1102.) A "full-blown adversarial proceeding" is not required but rather "an informal hearing in which the court ascertains the nature of the defendant's allegations regarding the defects in counsel's representation and decides whether the allegations have sufficient substance to warrant counsel's replacement." (People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1025.) "The court should deny a request for new counsel at any stage unless it is satisfied that the defendant has made the required showing." (People v. Smith, supra, at p. 696.) As the trial court has discretion to determine whether a defendant is entitled to replacement counsel, we review its decision for abuse of discretion. (Ibid.)
We see no abuse of discretion on this record. After each of defendant's two requests, the court conducted a hearing to ascertain the basis of defendant's complaints. At the first, the court stated to defendant, "this is the time for you to tell the Court any problems that you've had in your relationship with [counsel], if there are any. Is it simply your contention that you have not been advised as to the consequences of pleading to a strike offense, or is there more that you would like to tell the Court?" Defendant explained he had not been properly advised about his rights and did not want to accept the plea bargain; he also said his case had not been adequately investigated. Counsel informed the court that he had told defendant what pleading to a strike entailed, and he also described the investigation undertaken. At the second hearing, defendant presented a written statement asserting his attorney had misled him about the consequences of pleading no contest. He also gave examples of things he thought should have been done to more thoroughly investigate the case. Counsel responded orally by describing the advice provided to defendant before his change of plea and by explaining why certain investigative efforts were not feasible. The court concluded that defendant had "buyer's remorse" about the plea deal and regretted having pleaded no contest, but had not received ineffective assistance.
The trial court's inquiry into the issues raised by defendant was sufficient to ascertain the nature of defendant's complaints and the adequacy of counsel's performance. Based on that inquiry, the court rejected defendant's characterization of the representation and found counsel's explanation credible, as it was entitled to do. (People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1245.)
Defendant argues that when he sought to withdraw his plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel it created an irreconcilable conflict with his current lawyer, requiring that a different lawyer represent him for that purpose. When called upon to rebut a claim of ineffective assistance "the original attorney is placed in an awkward position," but that alone does not trigger the need for new counsel. (People v. Smith, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 694.) Were it otherwise, every defendant would be entitled to a new attorney on demand simply by asking to withdraw a plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. (Ibid.) Here the trial court determined through an appropriate hearing process that there was neither deficient performance in advising defendant nor a conflict of interest warranting replacement of counsel. Having reached that conclusion, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny defendant's request to withdraw his no contest plea without appointing substitute counsel to assist with a motion.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Grover, J.
WE CONCUR:
/s/_________
Mihara, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Danner, J.