34 Cal. App. 5th 311
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- On October 14, 2015, an eyewitness (D.M.) saw Marcus Washington with a handgun in his waistband and later waving what appeared to be the same gun from a car; D.M. called 911.
- Officers arrived, ordered Washington and the driver out; Washington fled on foot after allegedly reaching under the passenger seat and then running while clutching his pocket.
- Officers later found a loaded magazine in a backyard along Washington’s path of flight and a nine‑mm handgun stashed in a tree near where he was detained; no gun or ammo were found on his person.
- Washington was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (Pen. Code §§ 29800, 30305) and obstructing an officer (§ 148); he was convicted on all counts, admitted a prior strike and prior prison term, and was sentenced to an aggregate seven years.
- Procedurally, the public defender was initially appointed, Washington’s mother later retained private counsel (Barbee), supplemental discovery was produced, and counsel sought county payment (~$50) to copy supplemental discovery; the trial court denied the motion based on the retainer agreement and routine‑cost analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Washington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county must pay routine copying costs of supplemental discovery for an indigent defendant represented by privately retained counsel | County: not obligated to pay routine copying costs when a third party retained counsel and the retainer covers such costs | Washington: as an indigent defendant he was entitled to county payment of ancillary services (including copying) regardless of third‑party retainer | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying county payment; retainer terms are relevant and copying costs are routine and not compelled to be paid by county |
| Whether defendant was denied due process for lack of provided copies of discovery before trial | County/People: disclosure obligation satisfied by making materials available for inspection | Washington: denial of copies prejudiced his defense | Held: No prejudice; counsel had access to and reviewed discovery well before trial |
| Whether equal protection violated by differing treatment of indigent defendants with appointed vs. privately retained counsel | Washington: indigence should control, not counsel status | People: if third‑party retainer covers costs, defendant is not similarly situated to indigent defendants without such coverage | Held: No equal protection violation; defendant not similarly situated because costs were covered by retainer |
| Whether any trial error in discovery cost denial requires reversal | Washington: denial of copying caused prejudice warranting relief | People: any error harmless because defense had access and time to review | Held: Even if error occurred, defendant failed to show prejudice; affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- Corenevsky v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.3d 307 (county funding for court‑ordered expert costs; discussed county funding mechanism)
- Schaffer v. Superior Court, 185 Cal.App.4th 1235 (disclosure duty satisfied by inspection; prosecutor not required to furnish copies at taxpayer expense)
- Tran v. Superior Court, 92 Cal.App.4th 1149 (third‑party retention relevant to whether county must fund ancillary services)
- People v. Worthy, 109 Cal.App.3d 514 (indigency as primary test for county‑funded ancillary services; courts have inherent power to secure fair trial)
- People v. Gaines, 46 Cal.4th 172 (appellant must show prejudice from discovery error)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (right to effective counsel includes reasonably necessary ancillary services)