People v. Sanchez, 53 Cal. 4th 80

Background

Luis Oscar Sanchez was charged with cultivation of marijuana in Tulare County, with a prior strike allegation under the Two Strikes law.
On Oct. 28, 2008 Sanchez pled guilty to cultivation and admitted prior convictions, with defense counsel stating he had been fully advised and understood his rights.
The plea was part of a negotiated deal for a 32-month term; the court noted the defense counsel’s disagreement with the plea but agreed with defendant’s understanding of advisements.
By Dec. 2–9, 2008, Sanchez sought to withdraw his plea; the public defender contemplated conflict counsel, but the court indicated conflict counsel could be appointed only after a Marsden hearing.
On Dec. 9, 2008 the court appointed conflict counsel solely to investigate the motion to withdraw the plea, rather than for all purposes.
At the Jan. 2–30, 2009 sentencing period, conflict counsel had not found a basis to withdraw the plea; sentencing proceeded with Sanchez represented by the original counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Marsden hearing is required when a defendant seeks to withdraw a plea on ineffective assistance grounds.	Sanchez (People) argued the court may appoint conflict counsel to evaluate the claim without a full Marsden hearing.	Sanchez asserted the trial court must conduct a Marsden hearing before considering a substitute attorney to evaluate his plea withdrawal request.	A Marsden hearing is required if there is a clear indication the defendant wants substitute counsel.
If substitute counsel is warranted, must they be appointed for all purposes if the Marsden showing is that the right to counsel is substantially impaired?	If grounds exist, substitute counsel can be appointed to handle the matter, not necessarily for all purposes.	Substitute counsel should be appointed to protect the defendant’s right to effective assistance, potentially for all proceedings.	If the Marsden showing demonstrates substantial impairment, substitute counsel must be appointed as attorney of record for all purposes.
Whether appointing substitute/conflict counsel solely to evaluate a plea-withdrawal claim was proper procedure.	Appointment of conflict counsel for limited purpose to explore withdrawal was permissible.	Such appointment circumvented the required Marsden hearing and proper substitution process.	Not proper; appointing substitute counsel solely to evaluate the withdrawal claim was disapproved.
Whether the Marsden standard applies to preconviction and postconviction contexts.	The standard should be consistent with earlier Marsden lineage as applicable.	The standard should protect the defendant at all stages including postconviction requests.	Marsden standard applies at any stage when a defendant seeks substitute counsel.

Key Cases Cited

Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970) (establishes the Marsden hearing and substitute-counsel framework)
Smith, 6 Cal.4th 684 (1993) (appoint substitute counsel when needed to ensure effective assistance; cautions about multiple appointed attorneys)
Lucky, 45 Cal.3d 259 (1988) (requires some clear indication the defendant wants a substitute attorney to trigger Marsden duties)
Dickey, 35 Cal.4th 884 (2005) (distinguishes proper scope of special counsel versus Marsden substitution)
Clark, 52 Cal.4th 856 (2011) (assesses trial court handling of Marsden-type issues in pretrial context)
Makabali, 14 Cal.App.4th 847 (1993) (warns against using appointed counsel as watchdog over original counsel during post-plea proceedings)
Eastman, 146 Cal.App.4th 668 (2007) (addresses proper procedure for evaluating defendant’s claims about counsel)
Mejia, 159 Cal.App.4th 1081 (2008) (discusses limits on appointing conflict/independent counsel in Marsden context)
Mendez, 161 Cal.App.4th 1362 (2008) (discusses Marsden-related appointment practices)
Webster, 54 Cal.3d 411 (1991) (base Marsden standard for evaluating whether replacement is necessary)