California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Chaney, B276646 (Cal. App. 2018):
record clearly shows that the first appointed attorney is not providing adequate representation [citation] or that defendant and counsel have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result."'" [Citation.] Furthermore, "'"[w]hen a defendant seeks to discharge appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation, 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."'"' [Citations.] '"[S]ubstitution is a matter of judicial discretion. 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.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 95 (Valdez).) Substantial impairment of the right to counsel is shown "if the record shows that the first appointed attorney is not providing adequate representation or that the defendant and the attorney have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result [citation]." (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696.)
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.