NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee
,

v

.
BRADLEY JUSTIN BOWLING,

Appellant

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0091

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2017

- 106927

- 001 The Honorable William R. Wingard
, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office , Phoenix By Nicholas Chapman

- Hushek Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office
, Phoenix By Rena P. Glitsos C ounsel for Appellant FILED 1-10-2019STATE v. BOWLING Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

J O H N S E N , Judge:

¶1 Bradley Justin Bowling appeals his disorderly conduct and shoplifting convictions and the resulting sentences , arguing the superior court abused its discretion when it failed to inquire into his purported request for new counsel

. For the following reasons, we affirm

.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND

¶2 Bowling was charged with disorderly conduct, a Class 6 felony, and shoplifting, a Class 1 misdemeanor. The superior court found Bowling indigent
, appointed him a lawyer and set a firm trial date

. ¶3 At the beginning of the compr ehensive pretrial co nference one month before trial
, the following exchange occurred:

[Defense c ounsel]: Your Honor, before we address the [ scheduled pretrial matters ], Mr. Bowling would like to address the Court.
[Bowling]: [H] o w do I get my lawyer removed from the case?

T he Court: I'm sorry, what?
[Bowling]: My lawyer removed from the case.

The Court: Well, you need to file a motion.
[Bowling]: Yeah, I can't file because my hand is all messed up and [Defense counsel] said I could just ask you and you would remove him, and deal with it.

The Court: No, I don't deal with oral motions. You have to file something in writing.
[Bowling]: I guess you 're on board, because I can't write. I have all those pins in my hand.STATE v. BOWLING Decision of the Court

3 [Defense counsel]: Your Honor, I'm not

– I'm unable to file a motion to remove myself, so . . .

The Court : No, no, he has to do it.
[Bowling]: So then I guess he's staying on, I'm g uessing. Okay.

[Defense counsel]: That's fine. It appears that I'm going to stay on if he's not going to file the motion, right?
[Bowling]: I can't

– I don't have nothing to write with. My hand's all messed up.

The Court: I'm not talking about writin g it now, sometime in the future

– [Bowling]: I don't get medical treatment in there.

* * *
[Bowling]: He can't write it himself, so he's back on board.

The Court: Okay.
Bowling did not raise the issue with the court again , either in writing or orally

. ¶4 A fter a three

- day trial, the jury convicted Bowling of both charges

. Before sentencing, Bowling admitted to three prior felony convictions ; the superior court then sentenced him to concurrent terms of incarceration, the longest of which was 2.25 years . Bowling timely appealed. We have jurisdiction over Bowling 's appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9
, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12

- 120.21(A)(1) (2018) and 13

- 4033(A) (1) (2018). 1

DISCUSSION

¶5 Bowling arg ues the superior court violated his Sixth Amendment right t o counsel when it " failed in its duty to make any inquiry into the reasons for [Bowling's] request " for a change of counsel.

1 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite the current version of a statute or rule.STATE v. BOWLING Decision of the Court

4 ¶6 "The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to represe ntation by counsel," but does not guarantee indigent defendants "counsel of [their] choice." State v. Torres , 208 Ariz. 340, 342, ¶ 6 (2004). Nonetheless , when a defendant asks to change appointed lawyers, the court must "inquire as to the basis of a def endant's request." Id. at 343, ¶ 7. We review a superior court's ruling denying a change of counsel for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hernandez , 232 Ariz. 313, 318, ¶ 11 (2013).

¶7 Here, the superior court did not abuse its discretion because Bowling di d not make clear whether he wanted the court to replace his current appointed counsel with another or wanted the court to allow him to discharge that lawyer and represent himself

. The transcript reveals that Bowling's question

– "h ow do I get my lawyer re moved from the case?"

– and the ensuing discussion only focus ed on the procedure B owling would have to follow to end his current counsel's participation in the case

. At no point did Bowling unequivocally ask the court to appoint him a different lawyer ; nothing he said gave the court any indication that he had an irreconcilable conflict or a complete breakdown in communication with his lawyer. See Torres , 208 Ariz. at 342, ¶ 6 (stating grounds for change of counsel under Sixth Amendment). As the State s uggests, the court could have construed Bowling's question to suggest that he was merely thinking about whether to ask for a change of counsel

. ¶8 If the superior court discerned that Bowling might have been suggesting he wanted to change counsel , the better course would have been for the court to ask Bowling for clarification. Nevertheless, on this record, the court observed, heard and spoke with Bowling, and so was in a better position than we to understand the basis for his request

. See State v. Calderon , 171 Ariz. 12, 13

- 14 (App. 1991). Because Bowling did not inform the court of grounds that might have support ed a request for change of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, the court did not abuse its discretion by failing to inquire

. See Torres , 208 Ariz

. at 343, ¶ 7 ( citing Smith v. Lockhart
, 923 F.2d 1314, 1320 (8th Cir. 1991) ("W hen a defendant raises a seemingly substantial complai n t about counsel, the judge 'has an obligation to inquire thoroughly into the factual basis of defendant's dissatisfaction

. '") )

. ¶9 Bowling also argues the superior court abused its discretion when it "expressly prohibited him from making his claim unless he did so in writing." We disagree. First, regardless of whether a motion for change of counsel must be made in writing, Bowling did not clearly indicate even orally that he wanted to change his counsel. Second, n othing precluded Bowling from asking someone else to hand

- write his motion for him , and Bowling does not argue he could not have done so.STATE v. BOWLING Decision of the Court

5 CONCLUSION

¶10 For the for ego ing reasons, we affirm Bowling 's convictions and sentences.