California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Abilez, 161 P.3d 58, 41 Cal.4th 472, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 526 (Cal. 2007):
Defendant similarly fails to establish that the trial court's inquiry into his complaint was deficient. The record demonstrates the court allowed defendant to explain the reasons for his dissatisfaction with counsel and permitted counsel to respond. Nor has defendant demonstrated an irreconcilable conflict had developed. Counsel had adequate explanations for all of defendant's complaints, and "`[t]o the extent there was a credibility question between defendant and counsel at the hearing, the court was "entitled to accept counsel's explanation."'" (People v. Jones, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 1245, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 468, 64 P.3d 762.) Defendant was given "full opportunity to air all of his complaints, and counsel to respond to them." (People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 606, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 68 P.3d 302.) We perceive no abuse of discretion.
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.