Is a defendant's failure to obtain funding to pay a defense expert sufficient to trigger a Marsden hearing?

Defendant contends defense counsel's comments regarding his failure to obtain funding to pay the defense expert to testify triggered the court's duty. Essentially, defendant argues the trial court should have concluded defense counsel was incompetent based on those comments and, accordingly, held a Marsden hearing. But "the trial court has no statutory or inherent power to substitute appointed counsel, sua sponte, based on the judge's subjective opinion the attorney is incompetent." (People v. Gay (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1070, italics added.)

Nor was defendant's request for a continuance to hire private counsel "to go through things that went on at trial," including "the fact that I did not know that we waited 18 months for an expert witness . . . who wasn't called," sufficient to trigger a Marsden hearing. "When the defendant moves . . . for a continuance to obtain new counsel, he necessarily indicates some dissatisfaction with the attorney who has been representing him." (People v. Molina (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 544, 548-549 (Molina).) But a request for a continuance alone is not sufficient to trigger a Marsden hearing. (Ibid.) The defendant must also "assert[] directly or by implication that his counsel's performance has been so inadequate as to deny him his constitutional right to effective counsel." (Id. at p. 549 [no showing of inadequate counsel sufficient to trigger Marsden

Page 24