Skip to content
Name: Glover v. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 01/09/2001
Subsequent History: None

The United States Supreme Court here held that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals erred in engrafting onto the analysis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, an additional requirement that to prove prejudice, an increase in the term of imprisonment must be "significant." Although the amount by which a defendant's sentence is increased by a particular decision may be a factor to consider in determining whether counsel's performance in failing to argue the point constitutes ineffective assistance, it cannot serve as a bar to a showing of prejudice. Here,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lara
Case #: F031900
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/10/2001
Subsequent History: None

The trial court erred when it denied appellant's motion to discharge his privately retained counsel on the day the trial was to begin. Appellant was denied his sixth Amendment right to counsel because the trial court erroneously treated appellant's request as a motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, instead of applying the principles set forth in People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975. Marsden applies only to appointed counsel; a defendant may discharge his retained counsel of choice at any time and without cause. Appellant was not barred from discharging counsel due…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lara
Case #: F031900
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/10/2001
Subsequent History: None

The trial court erred when it denied appellant's motion to discharge his privately retained counsel on the day the trial was to begin. Appellant was denied his sixth Amendment right to counsel because the trial court erroneously treated appellant's request as a motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, instead of applying the principles set forth in People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975. Marsden applies only to appointed counsel; a defendant may discharge his retained counsel of choice at any time and without cause. Appellant was not barred from discharging counsel due…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Peracchi
Case #: F031202
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/17/2001
Subsequent History: Review denied 5/2/01

Under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 435, appellant's rights were violated where appellant said he did not want to talk to officers, but officers persisted in questioning him about his motivations for remaining silent. The officers' questions were designed to elicit an incriminating response after appellant had already invoked his right to remain silent. An interrogator never needs to know why a suspect wishes to remain silent; once the suspect's rights have been invoked, all questioning should cease. However, reversal was required only on the conviction for resisting arrest. Since Peracchi's admission relating to possession…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Morgan
Case #: C030469
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/30/2001
Subsequent History: Rehearing Granted August 15, 2001; Rev. denied, 12/12/01; depublished.

Due to the serious penal consequences of the Three Strikes Law, defense counsel has the duty, prior to a plea or trial predicated upon convictions charged as strikes, to determine, on the basis of records which are necessary to an informed decision, whether the convictions are strikes under California law, in order to advise the client accordingly. It is ineffective assistance to fail to do so. Here the strikes were two 30-year-old Arkansas convictions, which were charged as violations of a section of the Arkansas criminal statutes which did not exist at the time of the alleged…

View Full Summary
Name: Campbell v. Rice
Case #: 99-17311
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/05/2001
Subsequent History: None

The denial of a habeas petition was reversed where the trial court failed to make a sufficient inquiry into defense counsel’s conflict of interest. Petitioner was convicted of eighteen counts of first degree burglary. He was represented at trial by retained counsel, McCann. McCann was being prosecuted by the same district attorney’s office for a felony drug violation. The district attorney in chambers put that information on the record, and the court found there to be no conflict of interest. Campbell was not present for the discussion, was not advised of the conflict, no waiver…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Scott
Case #: B112469
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/28/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 11/28/01

Four days before his trial for assault was to begin, appellant made a Marsden motion for substitution of appointed counsel. Following the denial of his motion, he requested that he be allowed to represent himself, and asked the court for a continuance. The court denied both the motions. On appeal, appellant argued that the court erred when it denied his Faretta motion. The appellate court here affirmed. Motions made just prior to the start of trial are not timely. Further, the motion was not unequivocal: appellant alternately argued that he wanted to represent himself,…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Nguyen
Case #: 00-10272
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 08/28/2001
Subsequent History: None

Reversal was required where appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. A private attorney represented to the court that appellant's family had been attempting to retain him, but that he could not represent appellant because he did not speak Vietnamese. Appellant was not present for this meeting, and the court did not inquire further about it. Appellant also repeatedly stated to the court that he did not want the public defender representing him, that he wanted to retain different counsel, and that the public defender was not properly representing him. The court merely assured appellant…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Nguyen
Case #: 00-10272
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 08/28/2001
Subsequent History: None

Reversal was required where appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. A private attorney represented to the court that appellant's family had been attempting to retain him, but that he could not represent appellant because he did not speak Vietnamese. Appellant was not present for this meeting, and the court did not inquire further about it. Appellant also repeatedly stated to the court that he did not want the public defender representing him, that he wanted to retain different counsel, and that the public defender was not properly representing him. The court merely assured appellant…

View Full Summary