California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Morgan, 101 Cal.App.3d 523, 161 Cal.Rptr. 664 (Cal. App. 1980):
Other factors besides the reason for delay to be considered by the trial court in such a motion are the quality of representation being afforded the defendant by counsel, the defendant's prior proclivity to substitute counsel, the reasons for the request, the length and stage of the proceedings, and the disruption or delay which might reasonably be expected to follow the granting of such a motion (People v. Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 128, 137 Cal.Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187). It appears that the representation afforded appellant by the deputy public defender was of a satisfactory quality. Appellant's chief complaint two weeks before the trial was that the deputy public defender failed to communicate with him and appellant was concerned his attorney might not be prepared. The judge asked appellant's attorney whether he could be prepared, and counsel gave assurances that he could be because the case was not a complicated one. There is no showing that the deputy public defender was incompetent in any respect. In fact, appellant was acquitted of the charge of violating Penal Code section 12021; and convicted only of the charge of driving under the influence, which he actually admitted at trial. Also, 995 and 1538.5 motions were filed, each supported by a substantial memorandum. Thus, it does not appear that the quality of representation afforded appellant was a
Page 669
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.