People v. Armijo
10 Cal. App. 5th 1171
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Armijo was convicted after a negotiated no contest plea to attempted murder with enhancements in Los Angeles County (2017 publication).
- He sent two letters to the trial court complaining about his public defenders and seeking replacement counsel before and after replacement counsel had been appointed.
- The first letter preceded a replacement of his attorneys who effectively satisfied the request, while the second letter sought replacement again but the court did not hold a Marsden hearing.
- The trial court denied Armijo’s 995 motion and Armijo later pled no contest; he appealed challenging Marsden error as to the second letter.
- The appellate court reversed conditionally, remanding for a Marsden hearing and potential appointment of new counsel, with reinstatement of judgment if the Marsden process showed no need for replacement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not holding a Marsden hearing on Armijo’s second letter. | Armijo argues Marsden rights were triggered by second letter. | People contend no clear request warranted a Marsden hearing. | Yes, trial court erred; remanded for Marsden hearing. |
| Whether Armijo forfeited Marsden rights by pleading no contest. | No contest plea did not waive Marsden rights. | Forfeiture applies post-plea in some cases. | Plea did not bar Marsden hearing on the second letter. |
| Whether the Marsden error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | Record insufficient to show no prejudice. | Potentially harmless due to other defenses. | Not harmless on this record; remand required. |
| What remedy should follow a Marsden hearing in this context? | Reassign counsel if ineffective or irreconcilable conflict. | Maintain current counsel if adequate. | Conditional reversal; remand to hold Marsden hearing with possible appointment of substitute counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (Cal. 1970) (right to discharge/replace counsel when necessary to ensure effective representation)
- People v. Fierro, 1 Cal.4th 173 (Cal. 1991) (adequacy of representation standard for substitution decisions)
- People v. Lloyd, 4 Cal.App.4th 724 (Cal. App. 1992) (defendant must put the court on notice of desire to replace counsel; hearing required)
- People v. Sanchez, 53 Cal.4th 80 (Cal. 2011) (Marsden hearing required to resolve discharge/replacement requests at various stages)
- People v. Mendoza, 24 Cal.4th 130 (Cal. 2000) (hearing requirement stemmed from Marsden; must allow explanation of grounds)
- People v. Reed, 183 Cal.App.4th 1137 (Cal. App. 2010) (informal Marsden requests may suffice to trigger hearing)
- People v. Eastman, 146 Cal.App.4th 688 (Cal. App. 2007) (sentencing Marsden-like challenges require hearing)
- People v. Freeman, 8 Cal.4th 450 (Cal. 1994) (detailed complaints may bear on substitution without full Marsden hearing)
- People v. Wharton, 53 Cal.3d 522 (Cal. 1991) (detailed grounds do not automatically waive Marsden hearing obligation)
- People v. Jones, 210 Cal.App.4th 355 (Cal. App. 2012) (abandonment theory limited; not controlling here)
- People v. Padilla, 11 Cal.4th 891 (Cal. 1995) ( abandonment rule considerations)
- People v. Vera, 122 Cal.App.4th 970 (Cal. App. 2004) (abandonment considerations in Marsden context)