Case Name: PEOPLE v. MILLER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-01-26
Citations: 21 Mich. App. 113
Docket Number: Docket No. 5,852
Parties: PEOPLE v. MILLER
Judges: Before: Danhop, P. J., and McGregor and Quinn, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 21
Pages: 113–115

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. MILLER
1. Attorney and Client — Criminal Law — Appointed Counsel — ■ Dismissal.
Trial court properly denied a defendant’s request to dismiss his appointed counsel, where defendant failed to avail himself of the opportunity to obtain retained counsel.
2. Trial — Judges—Disqualification—Sua Sponte.
Trial judge, sitting as the trier of fact, was not required to disqualify himself sua sponte after indicating his disbelief in defendant’s claims that Ms appointed eonnsel should be dismissed for ineffectiveness where defendant failed to request the judge to disqualify himself and the record refleeted defendant’s desire for the trial judge to hear his ease.
3. Criminal Law — Trial — Mistrial — Witnesses — Accomplice — Statements.
Trial court failure to deelare sua sponte a mistrial when a witness testified to overhearing certain statements of defendant’s accomplice implicating defendant was not error where an examination of the transcript revealed that this testimony was stricken from the record in response to defendant’s objection and that even if the testimony had remained, its admission would have'been harmless error since there was overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, George W. Crockett, Jr., J.
Submitted Division 1 December 30, 1969, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 5,852.)
Decided January 26, 1970.
Leave to appeal denied August 25, 1970.
383 Mich 822.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 319, 321.
Right of defendant in criminal ease to discharge of, or substitution of other counsel for, attorney appointed by court. 157 ALR 1225.
46 Am Jur 2d, Judges § 199.
Craig Miller was convicted in a bench trial of breaking and entering. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Arthur N. Bishop, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Carl Levin (Defender’s Office-Legal Aid and Defender Association of Detroit), for defendant on appeal.
Before: Danhop, P. J., and McGregor and Quinn, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This case is submitted on the people's motion to dismiss or affirm, properly a motion to affirm under GCR 1963, 817.5(3).
Defendant was tried and convicted of breaking and entering (MCLA § 750.110 [Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.305]) by Recorder's Judge George W. Crockett, Jr., sitting without a jury, and was sentenced to serve 6 to 15 years in prison. On appeal, defendant raises three claims of error.
First, defendant claims the court erred in denying his request to dismiss his appointed counsel without ordering, sua sponte, a separate hearing into the effectiveness of counsel. "While defendant may have been dissatisfied with his appointed counsel, he failed to avail himself of the opportunity to obtain retained counsel. No other attorney was ready or even named to undertake defendant's cause. In People v. Stinson (1967), 6 Mich App 648, this Court held that a denial of defendant's request for a continuance to enable defendant to obtain his own counsel was not error. As in the instant case, the defendant in Stinson was dissatisfied with his appointed counsel and sought an adjournment at the outset of the trial to obtain other counsel. See also People v. Edwards (1969), 18 Mich App 526.
Second, defendant claims he was deprived of his right to a fair and impartial trial when the trial judge, sitting as the trier of fact, failed to disqualify himself, sua sponte, after indicating his disbelief in defendant's claims in support of his request to dismiss counsel. An examination of the record reveals no request to disqualify the judge; on the contrary, the record reflects defendant's desire for the same judge to hear the case when he stated: "I want for you to hear it." Under these circumstances and in the absence of any request at trial, this question is not preserved for appellate review. People v. Piotrowski (1966), 4 Mich App 510. See also People v. Miller (1922), 217 Mich 635 and People v. Turner (1952), 333 Mich 547.
Third, defendant claims the court erred in failing to declare, sua sponte, a mistrial when a witness testified to overhearing certain statements of defendant's accomplice implicating defendant. The argument, based upon Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 US 123 (88 S Ct 1620, 20 L Ed 2d 476), lacks merit. An examination of the transcript reveals the testimony was stricken from the record in response to defendant's objection. Even if the testimony remained, the admission of such testimony would have been harmless error since there was overwhelming evidence of guilt. Bearden v. United States (CA 5, 1968), 403 F2d 782; People v. Pelow (1969), 24 NY2d 161 (247 NE2d 150), and Ignacio v. Guam (CA 9, 1969), 413 F2d 513.
Motion to affirm is granted.