How have the courts dealt with the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in a search warrant matter?

In his letter to the court, defendant represents that prior to trial his attorney told him she would file a motion challenging the validity of the search warrant. However, on October 26, 2012, she informed defendant that the warrant was good and any such motion would be frivolous. Defendant contends the affidavit supporting the search warrant falsely claimed reliance on a confidential informant, that he was innocent of the charges, that his attorney lied to him, and that she failed to prepare a defense. As defendant's representations concern matters outside the record, any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon defense counsel's failure to challenge the search warrant would be more appropriately made in a habeas corpus proceeding. (See People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.)

Defendant also represents that he requested a continuance in order to obtain private counsel and that denial of his request forced him to go to trial without a proper defense while represented by an attorney who had lied to him. The record reflects that all attorneys announced ready for trial a few days before defendant made the request for continuance on October 29, 2012, at the time set for jury selection. Defendant requested a continuance a few minutes before the arrival of his attorney and the trial court waited until counsel arrived. When informed of defendant's request, defendant's trial counsel asserted defendant's due process right to counsel of his choice. The trial court denied the motion as untimely. The jury was then selected, the trial followed, and verdicts were entered two days later. We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion to deny the continuance and the request for private counsel. (See People v. Molina (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 544, 548.)