need for a Marsden hearing (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

need for a Marsden hearing in California

6 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2023 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Luckygreen
cal · 1988 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014
2 sentences

2014The need for a Marsden hearing arises “[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation.” (People v. Richardson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 479, 484 .) A request for substitution of appointed counsel can be made both before and after trial. “[T]he standard expressed in Marsden and its progeny applies equally preconviction and postconviction.” (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 694 .) When an appropriate request is made, “ ‘the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to rela

2013The need for a Marsden hearing arises “[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation.” (People v. Richardson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 479, 484 .) A request for substitution of appointed counsel can be made both before and after trial. “[T]he standard expressed in Marsden and its progeny applies equally preconviction and postconviction.” (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 694 .) When an appropriate request is made, “ „the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to rela

33
People v. Sanchezgreen
cal · 2011 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014
2 sentences

2014The need for a Marsden hearing arises “[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation.” (People v. Richardson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 479, 484 .) A request for substitution of appointed counsel can be made both before and after trial. “[T]he standard expressed in Marsden and its progeny applies equally preconviction and postconviction.” (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 694 .) When an appropriate request is made, “ ‘the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to rela

2013The need for a Marsden hearing arises “[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation.” (People v. Richardson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 479, 484 .) A request for substitution of appointed counsel can be made both before and after trial. “[T]he standard expressed in Marsden and its progeny applies equally preconviction and postconviction.” (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 694 .) When an appropriate request is made, “ „the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to rela

33
People v. Smithgreen
cal · 1993 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014
2 sentences

2014The need for a Marsden hearing arises “[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation.” (People v. Richardson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 479, 484 .) A request for substitution of appointed counsel can be made both before and after trial. “[T]he standard expressed in Marsden and its progeny applies equally preconviction and postconviction.” (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 694 .) When an appropriate request is made, “ ‘the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to rela

2013The need for a Marsden hearing arises “[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation.” (People v. Richardson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 479, 484 .) A request for substitution of appointed counsel can be made both before and after trial. “[T]he standard expressed in Marsden and its progeny applies equally preconviction and postconviction.” (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 694 .) When an appropriate request is made, “ „the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to rela

13

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Richardson green
calctapp · 2009
2 sentences

2015The need for a Marsden hearing arises “[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation.” (People v. Richardson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 479, 484 .) When an appropriate request is made, “ ‘ “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.” ’ ” (People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 230 .) “ ‘ “A defendant is entitled to relief if the record clearly shows that the appointed counsel is not providing adequ

2014The need for a Marsden hearing arises “[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation.” (People v. Richardson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 479, 484 .) A request for substitution of appointed counsel can be made both before and after trial. “[T]he standard expressed in Marsden and its progeny applies equally preconviction and postconviction.” (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 694 .) When an appropriate request is made, “ ‘the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to rela

42013–2015
People v. Streeter green
cal · 2012
2 sentences

2015The need for a Marsden hearing arises “[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation.” (People v. Richardson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 479, 484 .) When an appropriate request is made, “ ‘ “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.” ’ ” (People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 230 .) “ ‘ “A defendant is entitled to relief if the record clearly shows that the appointed counsel is not providing adequ

2014The need for a Marsden hearing arises “[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation.” (People v. Richardson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 479, 484 .) A request for substitution of appointed counsel can be made both before and after trial. “[T]he standard expressed in Marsden and its progeny applies equally preconviction and postconviction.” (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 694 .) When an appropriate request is made, “ ‘the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to rela

42013–2015
People v. Mendoza red
cal · 2000
2 sentences

2014The need for a Marsden hearing arises “[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation.” (People v. Richardson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 479, 484 .) A request for substitution of appointed counsel can be made both before and after trial. “[T]he standard expressed in Marsden and its progeny applies equally preconviction and postconviction.” (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 694 .) When an appropriate request is made, “ ‘the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to rela

2013The need for a Marsden hearing arises “[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation.” (People v. Richardson (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 479, 484 .) A request for substitution of appointed counsel can be made both before and after trial. “[T]he standard expressed in Marsden and its progeny applies equally preconviction and postconviction.” (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 694 .) When an appropriate request is made, “ „the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to rela

32013–2014
People v. Smith green
cal · 2003
1 sentence

2023(Marsden, at p. 123.) “When a defendant seeks new counsel on the basis that his appointed counsel is providing inadequate representation . . . the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to relate specific instances of inadequate performance.” (People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 604 .) Our Supreme Court has recognized that there must be “ ‘some clear indication by [a] defendant that he wants a substitute attorney’ before the trial court [is required to] conduct a hearing on such [a] request.” (People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 1005 .) The ne

12023–2023
People v. O'Malley green
cal · 2016
1 sentence

2023(Marsden, at p. 123.) “When a defendant seeks new counsel on the basis that his appointed counsel is providing inadequate representation . . . the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to relate specific instances of inadequate performance.” (People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 604 .) Our Supreme Court has recognized that there must be “ ‘some clear indication by [a] defendant that he wants a substitute attorney’ before the trial court [is required to] conduct a hearing on such [a] request.” (People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 1005 .) The ne

12023–2023
People v. Wharton green
cal · 1991
2 sentences

2017Armijo stated unequivocally in the second letter, “I am requesting that you assign my case to a state-appointed attorney.” We are not sure what more the People believe Armijo should have said to trigger his right to a Marsden hearing. 5 Third, citing People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558 , 882 P.2d 249 ] and People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 809 P.2d 290 ], the People contend that if Armijo’s second letter is deemed a request for substitute counsel, it obviated the need for a Marsden hearing because the letter set forth the basis of his dissatis

2017Armijo stated unequivocally in the second letter, “I am requesting that you assign my case to a state-appointed attorney.” We are not sure what more the People believe Armijo should have said to trigger his right to a Marsden hearing. 5 Third, citing People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558 , 882 P.2d 249 ] and People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 809 P.2d 290 ], the People contend that if Armijo’s second letter is deemed a request for substitute counsel, it obviated the need for a Marsden hearing because the letter set forth the basis of his dissatis

12017–2017
People v. Freeman green
cal · 1994
2 sentences

2017Armijo stated unequivocally in the second letter, “I am requesting that you assign my case to a state-appointed attorney.” We are not sure what more the People believe Armijo should have said to trigger his right to a Marsden hearing. 5 Third, citing People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558 , 882 P.2d 249 ] and People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 809 P.2d 290 ], the People contend that if Armijo’s second letter is deemed a request for substitute counsel, it obviated the need for a Marsden hearing because the letter set forth the basis of his dissatis

2017Armijo stated unequivocally in the second letter, “I am requesting that you assign my case to a state-appointed attorney.” We are not sure what more the People believe Armijo should have said to trigger his right to a Marsden hearing. 5 Third, citing People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558 , 882 P.2d 249 ] and People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 809 P.2d 290 ], the People contend that if Armijo’s second letter is deemed a request for substitute counsel, it obviated the need for a Marsden hearing because the letter set forth the basis of his dissatis

12017–2017

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 4019 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 459 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 487 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 667.5 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check