California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Rivers, 20 Cal.App.4th 1040, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 (Cal. App. 1993):
8 We do recognize that defendant's failure to explain himself cannot be stretched too far against him, because the court gave him little opportunity to go into details. However, defendant had later chances to talk to his attorney and demand that counsel seek to have him relieved of the consequences of any alleged incompetence--e.g. by a motion for new trial. Had defendant asked that a new trial motion be made on the grounds of incompetence, the attorney would have been obliged to notify the court and ask that new counsel be appointed to evaluate the claim. (See People v. Stewart (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 388, 396-397, 217 Cal.Rptr. 306.) In a case where defendant's efforts to assert his rights before the court were neither firm nor explicit, the absence of any later complaints that trial representation was inadequate may be given some weight. The record does reflect that defendant consulted his counsel, before the sentencing hearing, about obtaining a stay of execution. Communication was therefore still open.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.