Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

PEOPLE v. LAU, B238489. (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals of California Number: incaco20120925038 Visitors: 31
Filed: Sep. 25, 2012
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2012
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS SUZUKAWA, J. Defendant Hon C. Lau appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to substitute counsel. We affirm. On September 22, 2003, defendant was convicted of first degree murder. The following year we affirmed the judgment. ( People v. Lau (Dec. 20, 2004, B171427) [nonpub. opn.].) On December 20, 2011, defendant filed a motion for substitution of counsel in the superior court. He submitted a preprinted form that is used when criminal d
More

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

SUZUKAWA, J.

Defendant Hon C. Lau appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to substitute counsel. We affirm.

On September 22, 2003, defendant was convicted of first degree murder. The following year we affirmed the judgment. (People v. Lau (Dec. 20, 2004, B171427) [nonpub. opn.].)

On December 20, 2011, defendant filed a motion for substitution of counsel in the superior court. He submitted a preprinted form that is used when criminal defendants seek to have counsel relieved pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. Defendant also requested a copy of the trial transcripts. That same day, the trial court denied the motion and the request for transcripts.

On January 3, 2012, defendant filed a notice of appeal. On the form, he wrote that he was appealing only the trial court's denial of his motion to substitute counsel.

On May 21, 2012, defendant's appointed counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested that we conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On May 23, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to submit any issues that he wished us to consider. We have received no response.

Defendant's appeal is final. At this point, he has no counsel.1 Based on our review of the record, he has no other matters related to this case pending before any court. Put simply, defendant had no basis to file his motion in the first place. We have reviewed the record and are satisfied no arguable issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant's motion to substitute counsel is affirmed.

WILLHITE, Acting P. J. and MANELLA, J., concurs.

FootNotes


1. Although counsel appointed to represent capital defendants have an obligation to prepare and file petitions for writs of habeas corpus, there is no such duty for counsel in noncapital cases. (In re Sanders (1999) 21 Cal.4th 697, 717, fn. 11.)
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer