P. v. Perry
Defendant with $650 in cash in his pocket, fled his neighbors trailer within seconds after a drug raid began. The officers seized two baggies of methamphetamine, scales, and pay owe sheets. Defense counsel presented quite a lackluster defense: failing to voir dire any of the jurors, offering a cryptic and uninspiring opening statement, failing to object to expert testimony that his client was guilty, failing to object when the prosecutor commented on defendants failure to testify, meekly interrogating the experts, and failing to argue that the prosecution bore the burden of proof. A jury convicted defendant of possession for sale of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, 11378.)
For only the second time in nearly 25 years of public service, the public defender opined that his deputy had failed to provide defendant an adequate defense and requested the court to substitute counsel to bring a motion for a new trial. The court granted the request. But the court denied the new lawyers request for a continuance of the new trial motion for an evidentiary hearing and then denied the motion on the merits. On appeal, defendant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by denying him an evidentiary hearing and by denying his motion for a new trial based on the dismal performance of his lawyer. Court must affirm, not because we find his lawyers representation up to par, but because we cannot say the trial court committed a manifest abuse of discretion by either denying the request for an evidentiary hearing or by denying the motion for a new trial.
Comments on P. v. Perry