please the court helpful i'm susan will hammer at the office of the super bowl tender and i represent matthew ely conley i'm going to start with the timeline here because the determination of whether there's been an abuse of discretion in denying the continu counsel depends on the consideration of all the facts and taking the case matthew connelly was charged on nov twenty first two thousand and twelve until he was taken to trial on feb twenty sixth two thousand and thirteen three months later the only continuance was from the state he went to trial with his first public defender amanda rice and on march first a debt mistrial was declared and this case was set over for jury selection a motion for a continuance and that was the first motion for continuance filed by the defense in this case in the three months this case going through a march eleventh in the afternoon this case was called per call for trial the judge was very displeased by the continuance he said this over perjury selection on the morning of march twelfth and public defender rice filed a second motion for a continuance and daniel jackson filed a motion for a continuance saying that he needed to review discovery and interview witnesses before he could be prepared to go to trial on this case on march the twelfth this case is again call daniel jackson jackson was president court that he was honest and clear that he was not prepared to go to court that day he had reviewed the discovery  had had a chance to interview any of the witnesses he had received a credit card from the connally family so he had a retainer that he had not charge to get because he had begun to work on the case public defender wright said the connelly just wanted a different attorney and he was not trying to delay the judge disagree and bound that this was an attempt by matthew conley to delay its trial however the judge never asked matthew conley directly to explain why he wanted to different a different attorney to represent him the judge found that daniel jackson is aiding and abetting him and giving a delay he's caused to continuances in my courtroom just last monday and the judge found that the public defender who does an admirable job again findings without any consultation with conley about how he felt about his former counsel the judge denied the motion for continuance took a break and was clear that they would resume picking a jury as soon as they came back into the court room and calmly returned to the court room with the public defender rice again and she did represented him through a second trial when ruling on a motion to substitute counsel the court has to balance the defendant's right to choose counsel against the efficient administration of justice and this balancing requires review of the defendant's diligence and an inquiry into his request to determine if  is being used for delay the trial court here air because it didn't conduct any inquiry into connally's reasons for wanting to wanting to substitute counsel and his counsel was ready willing and able to represent calmly and calmly and that ten day break between his mistrial and his new trial was diligent and in taney new counsel particularly since he was he was in jail for that entire period and he had again only a ten day period in which to act there has to be an it it has to have that x upon which to exercise discretion at a minimum what is the court and no i would say that it has to know why calmly once you counsel and it needs to know how long of a continuance will be the different courts have found an error to deny the substitution of counsel without any inquiry into the reasons for substitution the proposed substitution of counsel occurs on the day of trial it's it's just a fact that these cases are moving too quickly sometimes it is going to be a decision that the forecast make there are two cases with facts almost identical to those found here this court in bingham on the day of trial the defendant wanted to substitute an attorney who was representing him on other cases but not in that particular case and that attorney was not even present in the court room the case and pending only three months with no continuances his motion for continu identical facts again there in the time frame arrested in november taking your trial in march a defendant who is in continuous custody and there the court held that if the court felt that the contents representation that a private identify the analysis of the trial for situations like this i'm just reading from cos it says however an analysis of recent cases leads to the closing that a new counsel specifically because i think the trial court's question was to mr jackson are you ready to enter your appearance and proceed to trial today so as a compound question to you the answer is no but you know if you were to read it as a response distinguish cost by saying cost there was no attorney even present the defendant had no money to hire an attorney and there was no indication that he would even be able to get an attorney into the court room also and all of these cases involving him in washington and green vassar and tucker there was no attorney present in the courtroom here and jack i'm sorry daniel jackson was present he had entered his appearance he was there he was ready willing and able to represent matthew calmly was he ready to go to trial the very first day of his representation no and if you've gone to trial that day without reviewing the discovery and without reviewing the witnesses i would be right here before your court again saying he was horribly ineffective toward taking matthew conley to a trial that he was not at all here and there is no case that says the being ready to represent a client means that you have to be ready to go to trial on that very day in these cases the continuance is sought on the day of trial and it is fair to deny that on the day of trial because mr jackson was there he had entered that appearance he made a motion for continuance which clarified i entered my parents in this case and he was there ready to represent mr calmly but not ready to go to trial that day and he is not required to go to trial on a case that he's not here for when that would obviously unpaid other ethical considerations and if you look at people get the childress there on the day of trial private counsel appeared in court and asked for leave to pilot appearance and he requested a continuance and the trial court denied a request very much like this one because all the witnesses were president court the public defender was prepared proceed instead of new and was ready to represent his client nasty distinction here that if an attorney is ready to represent his client he should be allowed into the case i would also distinguish the state's other case people be curried there it's very distinguishable in the facts that even encourage was out on bond he had plenty of time to get his own attorney and in fact he had retained counsel approximately two weeks prior to trial but that new counsel wasn't president and wasn't going to be able to basically wanted a continuance simply to be able to appear to work out a schedule curry's council was not willing to represent currie absent a continuance here that would i'm sorry absence of absence a continuance that allow him to be present in the courtroom and even begin to represent the defendant curry here daniel jackson was ready to represent matthew on when he was there he wanted discovery he had already talked to matthew he wanted to represent this person did not want to go to trial that day because he would have been ethically obligated not to go to trial that he was not prepared for and really i think you brought up part of the problem in this case is that there are so few that the question to mr jackson was a compound question we don't  clear answer there was no question in math and comp why do you want this counsel and said in your former counsel for a court to exercise discretion it needs those facts upon which to apply its discretion  here the error is that there simply was no inquiry there is no inquiry into matthew conley's reasons for wanting a delay and no inquiry into how long it would take him to find his counsel what steps he'd have to go through to get this council and ten days while in jail the court simply didn't make a record the court was going to trial on that day and it went forward and made a ruling without inquiring into the purposes and circumstances of the inconvenience to the prosecution witnesses court and jury unless it is shown that the defendant's actions were taken for the purposes of the play of de lay here there's no showing that matthew connally was  counsel he showed up in court with counsel ready to take on the job of representing him but not able to go to trial on that day without discovery without interviewing witnesses the trial court failed to make any inquiry into the circumstances of his meeting new counsel and his counsel's representation of him and simply assume the matthew conley was delaying and doing that the trial court refused scrushy and matthew ely c curry case recently decided by this court and that is that whether it be any council stands i specifically identified ready willing and able to make an unconditional entry of appearance instanter and of course curry does have some different facts as unconditional entry of appearance and stance here and here the defense claims that jackson had entered the parents but yes he filed a motion for substitution of counsel so when the charge asked him whether indication that you know she could have written to the judge for example and said that he is having disagreements or and is unable to communicate effectively with the attorney there's nothing like that where he is voiced any sort of in the dissatisfaction with his attorney other than the fact that he just wants somebody else so the standard in the cases are whether there is any showing of irreconcilable conflict or complete breakdown in communication and simply if he wants a different attorney that's not anywhere close to the standard of irreconcilable conflict or complete breakdown in communication i saw this was an unexplained last minute request it came on the day of trial in the sense that he had defendant to provide an affirmative way in a plate and the reasons was because what we've been talking about of court cases the say a court must inquire well here there's motion from both attorney jackson and there's the statement from public defender bryce with respect to what they're wanting to do which is to substitute the attorneys and so the trial court does have enough who are the judge in order to to make  sacrosanct relationship and start trying to you know understand what the nature of that relationship is if the defendant isn't bound to hearing that in the first instance so is your position that the court did not make an inquiry but there was enough well the judge did make inquiries to see what the status of the representation was the temple whether the members of the family unit and it had paid the councils he the judge says miss ms rice anything you want to say as to the motion to continue so that ended question that was that the existing public defender say anything that she wanted with respect to the motion continue which was also her motion of continuous attorney jackson's motion to continue and if he's present and he's willing and able to talk to him he has input as well so it's not like the judge is denying chances for the attorneys both attorneys for the defendants to make inputs and see what the defendant's motivation or reasons himself into the situation i think very last minute necessity in continuances and realizing that this is sort of like a pattern that the judge is then viewing as it's showing quite strongly so now we're is your question your honor that are these other cases identified in the record and no they're not identified specifically in the record and it is a chance imputing to defend this case his perceptions regarding mr jackson well his good the judge is not just complaining about the defendant intending on attempting to delay but aso imputing to mr jackson and a sort of play willingness to enable the defendant do this by being willing to come into a jackson's conduct and other cases which the trial court was aware in which the truck her case could take traditional notice of other proceedings before the same court it just seems like guilt by association if you assume that what he was saying about mr jackson was right i mean quite frankly in my experience a ten day turnaround on a jury trial is really quick and somehow in the defense in custody and the judge seems to be heavily relying on his perceptions and  concerns about mr jackson's behavior and i really don't see how it was in any way tie to the defendant it was just assumed that the defendant was doing for the same reason well the trial court essentially blamed the both the defendant personally and the attorney jack and for her for both intending on to win so that the the references to mr jackson's other cases bolsters the trial court's view of what mr jackson's intent is in jumping the case at the last minute but it's not necessarily then saying that that's what the only reason why the defendant is doing this one reason why the defendant is seeking to lay is because it is unexplained last minute  established that a trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion in denying a motion for substitution of counsel in the absence of ready and willing subs to counsel there's no indication that it's also a premised on of what mr jackson stated aides said yes i have entered my appearance and i can proceed to trial tomorrow but not today that would be a conditional entry of appearance because he's not going along needed because the only thing he knew about this case he said was from talking very briefly with the defendant and in custody now did the system public defender i realize that's not mr jackson but didn't an attorney represent them we just need a short continu allow him to get up to speed on the case i'm sorry your honor to repeat that please didn't the system i'm defender represent to the court that it would just be a short continues to allow mr jackson to get up to speed on the case into court the next day because the scheduling conflicts are something that would be stronger case for the defense to say there's not really as much of a delay as which a case in which a more definite open ended or a lengthy or continuous is required  lines from that was provided by the defense family however he did not charge the credit card and why he explained that he was waiting on the trial court's decision it doesn't really say what solution it is but you can be inferred that he is waiting for the ruling on the motion for refuse the credit card charges something if they had if they had waited and the length of time they could have made peace invalidated the credit card closed the account or something and then he was not getting paid after he's already agreed to to problems that aren't required because clinic cases take them off the docket at the last minute you can't be substituted a new one on errands all of libya impossible to protect the court staff it's all the numerous jurors and witnesses several whom here many witnesses some came from out of town others came from the state all that almost ended were fans didn't the trial court did they have a session actually before the day of the trial and the trial court was made aware that this was coming in the trial court basically and to the tuesday and the reason why they had this mistrial partly was because they didn't get the trial started early enough the last time so the judges really time is that of trying to get this trial underway this early as possible in the week and so that it's just it's i'm going to start by addressing the motion percent solution counsel both of these things are in mind that if you look at page three nineteen it's very clear just daniel jackson requested to intercept parents on behalf of matthew conley as part of his motion substitution of counsel there's no separate form that says across the top of the letters parents but he requested to enter the parents and again and in the common law on three thirty seven this motion to continue he asserted and he signed off on this assertion that if it's a charity entered his appearance in this manner on march eleventh two thousand and thirteen he entered an appearance in this case and has an article answer to a compound question choice and that's a personal fundamental constitutional right it's their right to be comfortable with the person that's sitting next to you while you're very liberty is it stay to have a common plan your defense to understand what witnesses are going to be called and how they're going to be questioned it requires to understand why he wants a new attorney that's going to require some input from matthew conley personally and he doesn't have to dislike this former public defender he doesn't have to say i won't work with her i can't work with her but he her firms and makes the counsel of choice that i want to go forward with this person and stand he doesn't have to recuse you gave her to make another choice and that's something that my i'm my own it seems to be insinuating that somehow he has to completely disassociate himself from his former counsel that's not required he doesn't have to be dissatisfied completely with one counsel to have a preference  can a judge always for been a new attorney from entering the case is there going to be a rule that once you have counsel that counsels the person that you're required to stay with you out the case especially if your case moves at a rapid pace if there's never a long enough continuance for you to obtain counsel and let the work dynes be a timely manner mr you just move forward as if you're on a conveyor belt anytime an attorney enters a case he has to become comfortable with the then we've got washington bassler bingham and tucker and those four cases all say it's error to deny counsel of choice without inquiry even on the day of trial even when a continuance is require you have to have an inquiry and i'm going to finish up here where mrs brooks began the standard is deferential standard is abuse of discretion but that standard requires that it's not inferences