Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court of California.



Decided: March 01, 2023

The petition for review is granted.

The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Did the trial court deprive defendant of effective assistance of counsel by failing to appoint substitute counsel to evaluate and potentially argue defendant's pro. per. motion to dismiss after appointed counsel refused to consider the motion based on an asserted conflict in arguing her own ineffective assistance of counsel?

Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 86 Cal.App.5th 739, 303 Cal.Rptr.3d 71, may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937, to choose between sides of any such conflict. (See Standing Order Exercising Authority Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(3), Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.)

Votes: Guerrero, C.J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins and Evans, JJ.

Copied to clipboard