adequate and competent defense in California

2025“A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense. [Citation.] Tactical disagreements between the defendant and his attorney do not by themselves constitute an ‘irreconcilable conflict.’ ‘When a defendant chooses to be represented by professional counsel, that counsel is “captain of the ship” and can make all but a few fundamental decisions for the defendant.’ ” (People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 728–729, overruled on another ground in People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 91 ; accord, People v. Rod

2024(See, e.g., People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 728 [“A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.”]; People v. Penrod (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 738, 750 [decision to call witnesses is ordinarily a trial tactic within the attorney’s control].) As defense counsel told the court, Edwards would not have provided exculpatory evidence because he did not witness the shooting.

2023(In re Barnett (2003) 31 Cal.4th 466, 472 [a defendant represented by counsel “ ‘surrenders all but a handful of “fundamental” personal rights to counsel’s complete control of defense strategies and tactics’ ”]; People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 96 [“ ‘counsel is “captain of the ship” and can make all but a few fundamental decisions for the defendant’ ”].) “ ‘A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.’ ” (Valdez, at p. 95.) Thus, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Honse did not provid

2022(People v. Rodriguez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 587, 623 ; see Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 123 .) “If the court holds an adequate hearing, its ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” ( Rodriguez, supra, at p. 623 .) “ ‘A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.’ ” (Valdez, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 95 .) The denial of a Marsden motion is therefore “ ‘ “not an abuse of discretion unless the defendant has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would ‘substantially impair’ the defendant’s ri

2025“A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense. [Citation.] Tactical disagreements between the defendant and his attorney do not by themselves constitute an ‘irreconcilable conflict.’ ‘When a defendant chooses to be represented by professional counsel, that counsel is “captain of the ship” and can make all but a few fundamental decisions for the defendant.’ ” (People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 728–729, overruled on another ground in People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 91 ; accord, People v. Rod

2022(People v. Rodriguez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 587, 623 ; see Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 123 .) “If the court holds an adequate hearing, its ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” ( Rodriguez, supra, at p. 623 .) “ ‘A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.’ ” (Valdez, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 95 .) The denial of a Marsden motion is therefore “ ‘ “not an abuse of discretion unless the defendant has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would ‘substantially impair’ the defendant’s ri

2021(See Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 913 .) Furthermore, except for his distrust of public defenders, defendant’s repeated complaints “were essentially tactical disagreements, which do not by themselves constitute an ‘irreconcilable conflict.’ [Citation] Indeed, a ‘defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.’” (People v. Cole, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1192 .) Relying on People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308 , 317- 318, defendant argues that “[t]he court failed in its duty of inquiry”; and citing People v

2015(People v. Bills (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 953, 961 .) “A defendant may not effectively veto an appointment of counsel by claiming a lack of trust in, or inability to get along with, the appointed attorney.” (People v. Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 606 .) A defendant “may not force the substitution of counsel by his own conduct that manufactures a conflict.” (Smith, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 696 .) “A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense. [Citation.] Tactical disagreements between the defendant and his a

2022(People v. Rodriguez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 587, 623 ; see Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 123 .) “If the court holds an adequate hearing, its ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” ( Rodriguez, supra, at p. 623 .) “ ‘A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.’ ” (Valdez, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 95 .) The denial of a Marsden motion is therefore “ ‘ “not an abuse of discretion unless the defendant has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would ‘substantially impair’ the defendant’s ri

2022(People v. Rodriguez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 587, 623 ; see Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 123 .) “If the court holds an adequate hearing, its ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” ( Rodriguez, supra, at p. 623 .) “ ‘A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.’ ” (Valdez, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 95 .) The denial of a Marsden motion is therefore “ ‘ “not an abuse of discretion unless the defendant has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would ‘substantially impair’ the defendant’s ri

2004Denial of the motion is not an abuse of discretion unless the defendant has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would “substantially impair” the defendant’s right to assistance of counsel.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 603 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132 , 976 P.2d 683 ].) “A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense. [Citation.] Tactical disagreements between the defendant and his attorney do not by themselves constitute an ‘irreconcilable conflict.’ ” (People v. Welch,

2004Denial of the motion is not an abuse of discretion unless the defendant has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would “substantially impair” the defendant’s right to assistance of counsel.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 603 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132 , 976 P.2d 683 ].) “A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense. [Citation.] Tactical disagreements between the defendant and his attorney do not by themselves constitute an ‘irreconcilable conflict.’ ” (People v. Welch,

2023A defendant is entitled to relief if the record clearly shows that the appointed counsel is not providing adequate representation or that defendant and counsel have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result.’ ” (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 599 (Taylor).) “A trial court should grant a defendant’s Marsden motion only when the defendant has made ‘a substantial showing that failure to order substitution is likely to result in constitutionally inadequate representation.’ ” (People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1025 .) “A de

2023A defendant is entitled to relief if the record clearly shows that the appointed counsel is not providing adequate representation or that defendant and counsel have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result.’ ” (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 599 (Taylor).) “A trial court should grant a defendant’s Marsden motion only when the defendant has made ‘a substantial showing that failure to order substitution is likely to result in constitutionally inadequate representation.’ ” (People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1025 .) “A de

2022(People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 860 (Crandell), abrogated on another ground in People v. Crayton (2002) 28 Cal.4th 346, 364-365 .) “A trial court is not required to conclude that an irreconcilable conflict exists if the defendant has not made a sustained good faith effort to work out any disagreements with counsel and has not given counsel a fair opportunity to demonstrate trustworthiness.” ( Crandell, supra, at p. 860 , italics omitted.) 10 Applying these principles, we find that defendant has not shown the trial court abused its discretion in refusing his request to discharge his a

2022(People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 860 (Crandell), abrogated on another ground in People v. Crayton (2002) 28 Cal.4th 346, 364-365 .) “A trial court is not required to conclude that an irreconcilable conflict exists if the defendant has not made a sustained good faith effort to work out any disagreements with counsel and has not given counsel a fair opportunity to demonstrate trustworthiness.” ( Crandell, supra, at p. 860 , italics omitted.) 10 Applying these principles, we find that defendant has not shown the trial court abused its discretion in refusing his request to discharge his a

2021(People v. Jackson (2009) 45 Cal.4th 662, 688 ; People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 728 .) “A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense. [Citation.] Tactical disagreements between the defendant and his attorney do not by themselves constitute an ‘irreconcilable conflict.’ ‘ . . . [C]ounsel is “captain of the ship” and can make all but a few fundamental decisions for the defendant.’ ” (Welch, at pp. 728-729) We accord “ ‘great deference to [defense trial] counsel’s tactical decisions.’ ” (People v. Mi

2020Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same way.’” (In re Andrews (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1234, 1253-1254 (Andrews).) A Marsden motion should be granted “‘“if the record clearly shows that the appointed counsel is not providing adequate representation or that defendant and counsel have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result.”’” (People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 230 (Streeter).) “‘A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to a

2014(People v. Robles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 205, 215 ; see Hamilton, 31 v. Hamilton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1142 , 1162–1163 (Hamilton); see also People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1139 [retained attorney].) Where, as here, the untimeliness of the request removed the absolute right to proceed in pro. per., defendant had no right to insist on his choice of legal strategy. ( Hamilton, supra, at p. 1163 .) This case is similar to People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 (Welch), in which “defendant wanted a defense of actual innocence and mistaken identity, whereas counsel pursued the defense that defendant . .

2014(People v. Robles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 205, 215 ; see Hamilton, 31 v. Hamilton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1142 , 1162–1163 (Hamilton); see also People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1139 [retained attorney].) Where, as here, the untimeliness of the request removed the absolute right to proceed in pro. per., defendant had no right to insist on his choice of legal strategy. ( Hamilton, supra, at p. 1163 .) This case is similar to People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 (Welch), in which “defendant wanted a defense of actual innocence and mistaken identity, whereas counsel pursued the defense that defendant . .

2023(See People v. Smith, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 696 .) However, defense counsel explained how his questions regarding Jane Doe 6 were part of his defense strategy. “ ‘A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense. [Citation.] Tactical disagreements between the defendant and his attorney do not by themselves constitute an “irreconcilable conflict.” ’ ” (People v. Jackson (2009) 45 Cal.4th 662, 688 .) When the court reminded defendant that his tape-recorded confession was coming in and he was going to have to

2015(People v. Bills (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 953, 961 .) “A defendant may not effectively veto an appointment of counsel by claiming a lack of trust in, or inability to get along with, the appointed attorney.” (People v. Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 606 .) A defendant “may not force the substitution of counsel by his own conduct that manufactures a conflict.” (Smith, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 696 .) “A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense. [Citation.] Tactical disagreements between the defendant and his a

2023(In re Barnett (2003) 31 Cal.4th 466, 472 [a defendant represented by counsel “ ‘surrenders all but a handful of “fundamental” personal rights to counsel’s complete control of defense strategies and tactics’ ”]; People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 96 [“ ‘counsel is “captain of the ship” and can make all but a few fundamental decisions for the defendant’ ”].) “ ‘A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.’ ” (Valdez, at p. 95.) Thus, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Honse did not provid

2022The court reasoned that the decision not to file the Vasquez/Litmon motion “was essentially a tactical decision, and ‘[t]actical disagreements between the defendant and his attorney do not by themselves constitute an “irreconcilable conflict.” ’ [Citation.] ‘A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.’ ” (Orey, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at pp. 568-569.) “[W]hen a defendant exercises his or her constitutional right to representation by professional counsel, it is counsel who ‘is in charge of the case’ and t

2016The court does not abuse its discretion in denying the motion unless the defendant has shown that a failure to replace counsel would substantially impair the defendant's right to assistance of counsel." (People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 604 (Smith).) Similarly, in criminal cases, "[a] defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense. 3 Michelle attached a number of documents to her notice of appeal, including a statement of the reasons she sought to substitute counsel, drug testing results, a letter from

2015(People v. Bills (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 953, 961 .) “A defendant may not effectively veto an appointment of counsel by claiming a lack of trust in, or inability to get along with, the appointed attorney.” (People v. Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 606 .) A defendant “may not force the substitution of counsel by his own conduct that manufactures a conflict.” (Smith, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 696 .) “A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense. [Citation.] Tactical disagreements between the defendant and his a

2026The trial court also correctly emphasized that trial strategy generally was a matter left to the attorney’s discretion. “ ‘A defendant does not have the right to present a 15 defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense. [Citation.] Tactical disagreements between the defendant and his attorney do not by themselves constitute an “irreconcilable conflict.” “ . . . [C]ounsel is ‘captain of the ship’ and can make all but a few fundamental decisions for the defendant.” ’ ” (People v. Jackson (2009) 45 Cal.4th 662, 688 ; see People v. Poore, supra, 13 Cal.5t

2024Nor is there merit to defendant’s claim that his attorney misunderstood his obligations under McCoy v. Louisiana (2018) 584 U.S. 414 .

2025(See also People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1208 (Myles) [“As for defendant’s complaint that 9 shown by appellant’s assertions that he did not trust Feimer. “ ‘If a defendant’s claimed lack of trust in, or inability to get along with, an appointed attorney were sufficient to compel appointment of substitute counsel, defendants effectively would have a veto power over any appointment, and by a process of elimination could obtain appointment of their preferred attorneys, which is certainly not the law.’ ” (Myles, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1207.)6 Appellant has not shown the trial court abuse

2014We reject Bingham’s assertion that the disagreement between him and his counsel demonstrated “a total breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.” It is clear from the two Marsden hearings that, although they disagreed about trial strategy, Bingham and his attorney were communicating and had no personal conflict. “ ‘ “[T]actical disagreements between the defendant and his attorney do not by themselves constitute an ‘irreconcilable conflict.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1207 .) “Indeed, a ‘defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but mere

2023“A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.” (Ibid.) “When a defendant chooses to be represented by professional counsel, that counsel is ‘captain of the ship’ and can make all but a few fundamental decisions for the defendant.” (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 376 .) After the court concluded there was no basis for dismissal under Vasquez, Hubbs did not demonstrate that a failure to replace counsel would substantially impair his right to effective assistance.

2011(People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 376 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 935 P.2d 708 ].) A defendant “does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.” (People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 728 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ].) Where the defendant’s mental competency is at issue, counsel is required to “ ‘advocate the position counsel perceives to be in the client’s best interests even when that interest conflicts with the client’s stated position.’ (Shephard v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 23, 28 [ 225 Ca

2016As our Supreme Court explained, “If a defendant’s claimed lack of trust in, or inability to get along with, an appointed attorney were sufficient to compel appointment of substitute counsel, defendants effectively would have a veto power over any appointment, and by a process of elimination could obtain appointment of their preferred attorneys, which is certainly not the law. [Citations.]” (People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1246 ; People v. Welch, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 728 [“A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequat

2015(People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1245 (Jones); see People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 695 (Smith).) “ ‘Denial of the motion is not an abuse of discretion unless the defendant has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would “substantially impair” the defendant’s right to assistance of counsel.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 603 .) The record shows no abuse of discretion.

2013(People v. Frierson (1985) 39 Cal.3d 803, 813 ; People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 729 .) Hettena had “„complete control of defense strategies and tactics.‟” (In re Barnett (2003) 31 Cal.4th 466, 472 .) “A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.” (Welch, at p. 728.) A defense attorney is not required to make a futile or frivolous motion.

2010(People v. Burton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 843, 856 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 184 , 771 P.2d 1270 ], citing People v. Frierson (1985) 39 Cal.3d 803, 812, 817-818 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 73 , 705 P.2d 396 ] (plur. opn. of Kaus, J.).) Counsel, however, is not obligated to present a defense that lacks “credible evidentiary support.” (Burton, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 857.) Here, defendant fails to show that he actually relied on the court’s misadvisement in relinquishing his right to self-representation on April 15, 1996.

2026The trial court also correctly emphasized that trial strategy generally was a matter left to the attorney’s discretion. “ ‘A defendant does not have the right to present a 15 defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense. [Citation.] Tactical disagreements between the defendant and his attorney do not by themselves constitute an “irreconcilable conflict.” “ . . . [C]ounsel is ‘captain of the ship’ and can make all but a few fundamental decisions for the defendant.” ’ ” (People v. Jackson (2009) 45 Cal.4th 662, 688 ; see People v. Poore, supra, 13 Cal.5t

2024(See, e.g., People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 728 [“A defendant does not have the right to present a defense of his own choosing, but merely the right to an adequate and competent defense.”]; People v. Penrod (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 738, 750 [decision to call witnesses is ordinarily a trial tactic within the attorney’s control].) As defense counsel told the court, Edwards would not have provided exculpatory evidence because he did not witness the shooting.