The purpose of a Marsden hearing is for the trial court to determine whether appointed counsel should be replaced. Marsden motion California law: Criminal defendants "are entitled under the Constitution to the assistance of court-appointed counsel if they are unable to employ private counsel. However, the decision whether to permit a defendant to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney during the trial is within the discretion of the trial court, and a defendant has no absolute right to more than one appointed attorney." (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d at p. 123.) "'"'A defendant is entitled to . . . substitute appointed counsel if the record clearly shows that the first appointed attorney is not providing adequate representation or that defendant and counsel have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result.'"'" (People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1085.) If a defendant requests a new attorney, the trial court must give the defendant an opportunity to explain the reasons for the request and to provide example of the counsel's inadequate performance on the record. (People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1085.) If the defendant articulates facts that suggest the attorney is rendering constitutionally ineffective assistance, the trial court is obligated to make whatever inquiry is necessary to develop a sufficient record so that it may assess the defendant's claim. (People v. Munoz (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 62, 66.) Marsden hearing California: The purpose of a Marsden hearing in California is for the trial court to determine whether appointed counsel should be replaced: "A trial judge is unable to intelligently deal with a defendant's request for substitution of attorneys unless he is cognizant of the grounds which prompted the request. The defendant may have knowledge of conduct and events relevant to the diligence and competence of his attorney which are not apparent to the trial judge from observations within the four corners of the courtroom. Indeed, 'when inadequate representation is alleged, the critical factual inquiry ordinarily relates to matters outside the trial record: whether the defendant had a defense which was not presented; whether trial counsel consulted sufficiently with the accused, and adequately investigated the facts and the law; whether the omissions charged to trial counsel resulted from inadequate preparation rather than from unwise choice of trial tactics and strategy.'" (Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at pp. 123-124.) In determining whether a trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying a Marsden motion, the reviewing court should consider all of the circumstances of the particular case (People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 426), including: (1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) the adequacy of the court's inquiry into the defendant's complaint; (3) whether the conflict between the defendant and counsel was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense (People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 606-607).