When will a court grant a motion for a new trial on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel?

Vigeant contends that a hearing was necessary to resolve material disputed issues of fact and to allow him the opportunity to establish he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to investigate and consult and retain experts. He adds that the denial of an evidentiary hearing violated his right to due process. Vigeant acknowledges that, although there is no case law requiring a trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing when a new trial motion is based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a trial court has the discretion to hold such a hearing when the new trial is sought on the grounds of jury misconduct. (See, e.g., People v. Hedgecock (1990) 51 Cal.3d 395, 415.) Vigeant urges that the court must have the same discretion to hold a hearing to resolve material disputed issues relating to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Page 23

We agree that the trial court had this discretion, but we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635 is instructive on this point. In that case, the defendant moved for a new trial, alleging jury misconduct and presenting the declarations of three jurors who stated that the jury never reached a verdict on the murder charges even though there were signed verdict forms. (Id. at p. 685.) The trial court did not find the declarations credible and denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. (Id. at pp. 685-686.) The reviewing court found no "manifest and unmistakable abuse in discretion" and stated that the trial court could resolve any disputed factual issue without need for an evidentiary hearing. (Id. at p. 686.)