Hayes v. Superior Court

Filed 10/29/07 Hayes v. Superior Court CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

----

Petitioner Blufford Hayes, Jr., awaits retrial in a special circumstances murder case. His attorney, Richard Such, filed an application to have second counsel appointed to assist in the defense, but the trial court denied that request. After we denied counsels petition for writ of mandate, the California Supreme Court granted review and ordered us to issue an alternative writ.

The right to appointment of a second attorney in a capital case is not a constitutional right [citation], but is permitted by statute in the discretion of the court. (People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 976, 950; see Keenan v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 424.)

The petition and exhibits in this case have been sealed, and we therefore do not provide the usual factual background or detailed analysis in this opinion. We have reviewed the record and conclude that, for the reason outlined in the writ petition, the trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioners request.

The alternative writ and previously ordered stay are discharged. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent court to reconsider counsels application for the appointment of a second attorney for the reason described in the petition for writ of mandate.

HULL, J.

We concur:

RAYE , Acting P.J.

ROBIE , J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.