California v. Lucero
Annotate this CaseDefendant Jesus Lucero failed to appear during most of his trial in this case. The trial court nevertheless proceeded with the trial in his absence, and a jury found him guilty. Defendant’s appointed counsel, John Dorr, filed a motion for new trial, arguing that there had been good cause for defendant’s absence from trial. Dorr conceded, however, that the motion was untimely, and the trial court denied it as untimely, without even reading it. In a previous appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion was not untimely, and that Dorr rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel by conceding that it was. On remand, the trial court duly held a hearing on the new trial motion; once again, Dorr represented defendant, and once again, defendant failed to appear. The trial court found that defendant was voluntarily absent; it then proceeded to deny the motion. Defendant appealed. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal held that, while Dorr’s previous ineffective assistance afforded sufficient grounds to relieve him and to appoint new counsel on remand, the trial court was not required to do so unless and until defendant asked it to. In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Court held the trial court’s finding that defendant’s absence from the new trial hearing was knowing and voluntary was supported by substantial evidence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.