People v. Lindstrom CA3
C088699
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 16, 2021Background
- Defendant Michael Lindstrom owned a pit bull (Red) that repeatedly was observed off-leash and had prior attacks; in November 2016 Red severely attacked 90‑year‑old neighbor Julian Salazar, causing extensive, lasting injuries.
- Lindstrom was charged with two felonies under Penal Code §§ 399.5(a) and 399(b); after a two‑day bench trial the court acquitted on count one and convicted on count two (mischievous dog causing serious bodily injury).
- After conviction, defense and prosecution discussed mental‑health diversion; the court referred the matter to probation and allowed time to seek diversion but required active treatment.
- At a pre‑sentencing hearing Lindstrom asked to discharge his retained counsel, alleging lack of meetings and inadequate representation; the court held a Marsden hearing, applied the appointed‑counsel standard, and denied the request.
- The court then sentenced Lindstrom to 364 days in jail (execution suspended) and five years of formal probation.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal reversed and vacated the sentence because the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in denying Lindstrom’s request to discharge retained counsel; the court remanded to allow Lindstrom to obtain counsel of his choice. The court also construed "adjudication" in §1001.36 to mean sentencing, rendering the ineffective‑assistance claim about failing to seek diversion moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial court denial of motion to relieve counsel | Denial proper; court found no breakdown and applied Marsden standard | Lindstrom sought to discharge retained counsel and was entitled to replacement unless delay or significant prejudice would result | Reversed: court applied indigent/appointed‑counsel standard in error; for retained counsel Ortiz rule applies and denial requires reversal and remand to allow new counsel |
| 2. Ineffective assistance for failing to request pretrial mental‑health diversion (§1001.36) | Counsel not ineffective or issue moot | Counsel should have sought diversion pretrial | Moot on appeal: court interprets "adjudication" in §1001.36 to mean judgment/sentencing, so diversion remains available on remand; ineffective‑assistance claim need not be decided now |
| 3. Ineffective assistance at sentencing (counsel argued against continuance) | Counsel’s comments reflected realistic assessment; no prejudice | Counsel undermined defense at sentencing and should have requested continuance | Moot given reversal and remand; not reached on merits |
| 4. Probation condition (10‑year animal ban) exceeds probation term | Condition valid as imposed | Condition improperly extends beyond five‑year probation term | Moot due to vacatur of sentence; not decided |
| 5. Claim for discharge from probation under amended §1203.1 (felony probation reduced to two years) | Statutory change not applicable to current sentence or moot | Lindstrom seeks discharge under new law | Moot as sentence vacated; not decided |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ortiz, 51 Cal.3d 975 (Cal. 1990) (nonindigent defendant may discharge retained counsel unless substitution causes significant prejudice or unreasonable delay)
- People v. Munoz, 138 Cal.App.4th 860 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (trial court erred by applying appointed‑counsel standard to motion to replace retained counsel; reversal required)
- United States v. Gonzalez‑Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (erroneous denial of counsel of choice is structural error requiring automatic reversal)
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (Cal. 2020) (overview of §1001.36 mental‑health diversion statutory framework)
- People v. Curry, 62 Cal.App.5th 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (construed "adjudication" in §1001.36 to mean judgment/sentencing)
- People v. Braden, 63 Cal.App.5th 330 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (concluded diversion is unavailable after trial begins; disagreed with Curry)
- People v. Graham, 64 Cal.App.5th 827 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (held §1001.36 diversion timely only pre‑verdict)
- People v. Dowdell, 227 Cal.App.4th 1388 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguished; court may deny substitution when granting it would cause unreasonable disruption)
- People v. Karaman, 4 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 1992) ("judgment" is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces sentence)