Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard F. Toohey, Judge, Super. Ct. No. 05CF3372.
Peter Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
At defendant Christopher Edward Nell’s sentencing hearing held after he was convicted of first degree murder, his counsel advised the court defendant wanted a Marsden (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) hearing. (People v. Nell (Apr. 28, 2010, G040797) [nonpub. opn.], pp. 2, 20.) The court denied the motion (id. at p. 21) and judgment was entered against defendant (id. at p. 2). He appealed on several grounds, including a claim the court did not conduct a sufficient hearing on his Marsden motion. (Ibid.) We agreed as to the Marsden issue, reversed the judgment on that ground, and remanded the case to the trial court to hold the required hearing. (Id. at pp. 22, 23.) On remand the court held a new Marsden hearing, which it denied, and reinstated the judgment.
After defendant appealed we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case and the disposition. He did not argue against defendant but advised the court he had not found any issues to present on defendant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) He did suggest the denial of the Marsden motion as a possible issue to assist us in our independent review of the record. Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him. We examined the entire record to determine if any arguable issues were present, including those suggested by counsel and defendant, and found none. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441- 442; People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 111-112.)
The grounds for defendant’s Marsden motion were an insufficient number of visits from his counsel, counsel’s failure to interview several witness, secure expert witnesses or sufficiently advise defendant as to whether he should testify at trial, and “an increasingly adversarial attorney-client relationship.” (People v. Nell, supra, G040797, p. 20.) At the hearing on remand trial counsel addressed each of these concerns in detail and defendant was given the opportunity to respond to her statements and add any other information, which he did.
If a defendant suggests he has problems with his lawyer the trial court must allow him to voice his complaints and “if any of them suggest ineffective assistance, to conduct an inquiry sufficient to ascertain whether counsel is in fact rendering effective assistance. [Citations.]” (People v. Eastman (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 688, 695.) The record reveals the court conducted such a hearing.
“‘A defendant is entitled to have appointed counsel discharged upon a showing that counsel is not providing adequate representation or that counsel and defendant have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result.’ [Citations.] [¶] We review a trial court’s decision declining to discharge appointed counsel under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. [Citation.]” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1190.) No such showing was made and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Marsden motion.
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: ARONSON, J., FYBEL, J.