How have the courts dealt with a defendant's claim that his trial attorney had a conflict of interest?

Defendant filed a supplemental brief. In his brief, he reiterates the claims made in his Marsden motion that his trial attorney had a conflict, as her office had represented one of the codefendants and she lied about that representation, that he knew she would not fight for him, and that she did not provide him discovery until after he entered his plea. We construe this as a claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Marsden motion. Marsden imposes several requirements upon the trial court. The court must allow the defendant to explain the basis of his complaint, relate specific instances of counsel's inadequate performance, and allow counsel to respond accordingly. (People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 487-488.) If the defendant presents facts that raise a question about counsel's effectiveness, the court must question counsel to ascertain the veracity of the claims made. (Id. at p. 488.) The court must also make a record to sufficiently show the nature of defendant's complaints and the court's response to them. (Ibid.) A defendant is entitled to different counsel if the record demonstrates appointed counsel is not providing adequate representation or that defendant and counsel have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result. (Ibid.)

Page 6