Is there any case law where the trial court dismissed standby counsel for failing to communicate with appellant through a translator?

Nonetheless, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Symonds based on "this single minor transgression" and should have simply warned Symonds not to attempt to communicate with appellant through the translator, thus protecting "appellant's long-standing grant of stand by counsel." This error, appellant argues, was prejudicial because he could not confer with standby counsel prior to sentencing. But as discussed, standby counsel is appointed for the benefit of the trial court, not to assist appellant as an advisory counsel would. (See People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 149 ["The court was not required to appoint advisory counsel to assist defendant. [Citation.] Rather, the court appointed . . . standby counsel for the benefit of the court in case it became necessary for counsel to step in and complete the trial"].) Thus, there would have been no right to confer with or receive advice from standby counsel at the sentencing hearing or at any other point in the proceedings. Moreover, the record shows that Symonds had been put on notice on at least two other occasions that he was there as standby counsel only and was not appointed as advisory counsel. In this context, we find no abuse of discretion.¹⁸

Page 22