In In re Brindle (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 660, petitioners were inmates who had already asked the public defender to represent them. The officials at the penal facility refused to allow the public defender access to the petitioners because the petitioners had not yet been charged and had counsel appointed by a court. Petitioners in their petition for writ of habeas corpus prayed for access to the public defender. The trial court granted relief far in excess of the relief requested by petitioners. In Brindle this court affirmed the trial court insofar as the order granted relief to the named petitioners but reversed in all other respects and set out the proper procedure to be followed by the correctional authorities.( Id., at p. 683.) As the Court noted in Brindle, the expansive relief granted by the trial court was only requested during argument and no such relief was prayed for in the petition for writ of habeas corpus. ( Id., p. 675.) The Court went on and noted that the order was improper because the record did not show there was a proper "class" in need of the orders of protection. ( Id., at p. 676.) Additionally, the Court reiterated that the right to counsel is the defendant's. "The public defender is not afforded by statutory authority or decisional law the wide range of authority to personally consult with all detained persons 'under investigation in any criminal matter' in the absence of a request for counsel communicated directly or through a third party . . . ." ( Id., at p. 677.) Brindle did not give the public defender the right to see any inmate not yet represented by counsel. Rather, it told correctional and other authorities to give inmates who had asked to see the public defender notice that the public defender was there so the inmate could decide whether or not he or she wanted to consult with the public defender. (See Brindle, at p. 682.)