People v. Castillo
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
EPSTEIN, J.
In the published portion of this opinion we conclude that a defendant in a criminal proceeding, who becomes indigent after retaining defense counsel, is not necessarily denied effective representation by reason of a trial court decision not to accord appointed status to his counsel in order to assure that the attorney is paid. We do this in the context of attorneys who are willing to serve, and clients who do not seek their discharge or replacement. We also decide that the bodily harm provision of the aggravated kidnapping statute (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (a)) 1 is not…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- People v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram, P.C. v. HazardDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- People v. ChaconCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- People v. EstradaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- People v. FrederickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.