Skip to content
Name: People v. Eastman
Case #: F049395
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/09/2007
Summary

Revisiting People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, the court held that where a defendant makes a motion to withdraw his plea on claims of ineffective assistance and states facts that could constitute good cause to withdraw, the court is required to hold a Marsden (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court cannot discharge its duties under Marsden by appointing second counsel to investigate defendant’s claims. If defendant prevails at the Marsden hearing, new counsel is substituted for all purposes in place of the original attorney. If the Marsden motion is denied, defendant is not entitled to new counsel. In this case, the error was reversible–since second counsel was appointed to represent appellant on a motion to withdraw plea without the requisite Marsden hearing being held, it is not known what defendant would have shown and, thus, it cannot be said the error was harmless under the Chapman standard. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18.)