California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Walker, A133351 (Cal. App. 2013):
The " ' "contours of the rule set forth in Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118," ' " are " ' "well settled. ' "When a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation, the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to relate specific instances of the attorney's inadequate performance. [Citation.] A defendant is entitled to relief if the record clearly shows that the first appointed attorney is not providing adequate representation [citation] or that defendant and counsel have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result." ' [Citation.]" ' [Citation.]" (People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 878, italics added.) "Marsden imposes four requirements" on the trial court: "First, if 'defendant complains about the adequacy of appointed counsel,' the trial court has the duty to 'permit [him or her] to articulate his [or her] causes of dissatisfaction and, if any of them suggest ineffective assistance, to conduct an inquiry sufficient to ascertain whether counsel is in fact rendering effective assistance.' [Citations.]" (People v. Mendez (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1367.)
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.