California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Stevens, 156 Cal.App.3d 1119, 203 Cal.Rptr. 505 (Cal. App. 1984):
Appellant brought his difficulties with counsel to the court's attention at the first hearing in superior court following arraignment; 9 counsel did not appear and the matter was continued; the hearing on substitution was held a week later before the same judge. There is not the slightest indication that appellant's purpose in seeking substitution was a desire to delay the proceedings; no previous requests for continuance had been made. Furthermore, the record shows "[n]o prospect of possibly impairing efficient judicial administration ... sufficient to overcome [appellant's] interest" in appointment of a public defender. (People v. Gzikowski, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 589, 186 Cal.Rptr. 339, 651 P.2d 1145.) As appellant points out, all the prosecution witnesses were law enforcement officers, and the record contains no evidence that a continuance would prevent their appearance. Indeed, the court had discussed the possibility of a continuance at the hearing on the validity of the prior, and the prosecutor raised no objection.
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.