# People v. Chavez

> California Supreme Court · January 29, 1980 · 26 Cal. 3d 334

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9598484

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE HECTOR CHAVEZ, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 29, 1980
- **Citations:** 26 Cal. 3d 334; 161 Cal. Rptr. 762; 605 P.2d 401; 1980 Cal. LEXIS 139
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Clark
- **Judges:** Tobriner, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 114 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9598484

## Opinion text

*366 CLARK, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment without modification. I would hold the trial court did not err in “denying the request for the continued appointment of counsel without affording defendant an opportunity to explain what circumstances, if any, might warrant such continued appointment.” (Ante, pp. 347-348) As I recently explained, I would adhere to this court’s holding that “‘there can be no abuse of [the trial court’s] discretion when the court appoints competent counsel who is uncommitted to any position or interest which would conflict with providing an effective defense.’” (Harris v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 786, 800-801 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 318 , 567 P.2d 750 ], quoting Drumgo v. Superior Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 930, 934-935 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 506 P.2d 1007 , 66 A.L.R.3d 984 ].) A fortiori, I conclude defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s action in this regard. I concur in the opinion of the court insofar as it holds a criminal defendant’s state constitutional right to confront witnesses against him is not violated by the admission of prior statements of a witness whom the defendant actually does confront and fully cross-examine at trial. Consistent with my position in In re Culbreth (1976) 17 Cal.3d 330, 335-336 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 551 P.2d 23 ], I would not modify the judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9598484. Public record. Not legal advice.