Magana v. Superior Court of San Mateo Cnty., 22 Cal. App. 5th 840

Magana was charged with two counts of rape; retained counsel Daniel Everett represented him and the trial was continued multiple times before the March–April 2018 trial settings.
On the initial trial day Everett repeatedly appeared late, sought last-minute continuances based on a newly asserted impeachment witness (Benito Zapata) and an expert on false confessions, and engaged in ex parte email communications with the court.
Everett left the courtroom unexpectedly during proceedings and failed to subpoena the purported witness despite learning of him months earlier; his filings for an expert were described as boilerplate and unrelated to the issue he asserted.
Everett exercised a peremptory challenge against one judge, filed and then withdrew a challenge for cause to Judge Grandsaert, later filed a second statement of disqualification which the court struck as untimely, and repeatedly accused judges of racial animus without evidentiary support.
The trial judge continued the case, then granted the prosecution’s motion to remove Everett as defense counsel based on lack of preparedness, repeated delays, and inadequate representation; the Court of Appeal denied Everett’s writ petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Everett/Magana)	Defendant's Argument (Prosecution/Respondent)	Held
Timeliness of second disqualification statement	The clerk’s marking and the court’s refusal to disqualify deprived the court of jurisdiction; the statement raised post-hearing facts	The second statement repeated older complaints and was presented late; statute requires prompt presentation	The court properly struck the second statement as untimely; no jurisdictional defect
Removal of retained counsel over defendant’s objection	Removal was unauthorized; retained counsel cannot be taken away absent conflict or incapacity	Court may remove counsel to ensure adequate representation, prevent impairment, and protect speedy trial rights	Removal was within discretion given Everett’s repeated unpreparedness and delay; no abuse of discretion
Use of recusal motions and allegations of bias	Allegations of bias (including racial animus) justified recusal	Challenges for cause lacked factual support and were used for delay	Recusal claims were facially insufficient or untimely; court rightly rejected them
Referral to State Bar	No referral warranted; conduct did not rise to discipline	Everett’s conduct suggested incompetence, false statements, misuse of recusal process	Court ordered referral to the State Bar for investigation as warranted

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (Sixth Amendment includes right to chosen counsel but it is not absolute)
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (defendant’s right to chosen counsel is circumscribed to protect trial integrity)
People v. Richardson, 43 Cal.4th 959 (2008) (court may remove counsel to eliminate conflicts, ensure adequate representation, or prevent impairment)
People v. Strozier, 20 Cal.App.4th 55 (1993) (trial court may remove retained counsel when counsel admits incompetence or is unprepared)
People v. Cole, 33 Cal.4th 1158 (2004) (court may relieve counsel on its own motion after sufficient warning and consideration)
People v. Mungia, 44 Cal.4th 1101 (2008) (removal of counsel permissible to prevent substantial impairment of proceedings)
People v. Jones, 33 Cal.4th 234 (2004) (Smith limited; courts may remove counsel to protect defendant’s right to competent advocacy)
In re Aguilar, 34 Cal.4th 386 (2004) (referral to State Bar appropriate where counsel’s misconduct may have jeopardized proceedings)