Opinion ID: 2624953
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Request a Mistrial or Move to Withdraw Following Appellant's Comment in the Jury's Presence

Text: [¶ 47] Appellant asserts that his defense counsel was ineffective by not taking curative action, such as moving for a mistrial or to withdraw from the case, after appellant commented about his defense counsel's representation in the jury's presence. According to appellant, the jury could only be distracted from the evidence based on appellant's remarks, which remarks may have left an impression that appellant's defense counsel was ineffective and lessened defense counsel's impact thereafter. Further, a motion to withdraw would have been of some benefit to appellant because the trial court could reasonably have granted that motion in these circumstances.... [¶ 48] We reiterate appellant's comments in the jury's presence following Tina Evans' testimony: [APPELLANT]: Excuse me, Your Honor. Before we continue, may I make a brief statement? THE COURT: I don't think you should. Have you conferred with [defense counsel]?    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: This is new to me. [PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, this is probably something that shouldn't be before the jury. [APPELLANT]: I just want to make a statement for the record, Your Honor. I don't believe that I'm getting adequate assistance of counsel. [Defense counsel] is refusing to bring forth discrepancies and statements made seven months ago and statements made THE COURT: Let's do it this way, sir. We're going to go ahead with the evidence. I note throughout the trial you have been conferring with [defense counsel]. And I would urge you to continue to do so. At the conclusion of the witnesses here todayI'm not going to delay this trial right now. I'll give you a chance to be heard on the record. Okay? [APPELLANT]: Thank you, Your Honor. The district court later allowed appellant to be heard outside the jury's presence, which we previously set forth in detail. [¶ 49] Appellant has not established how his comments actually (as opposed to hypothetically) prejudiced him to a degree that necessitated a mistrial or how the failure to make such a motion ultimately prejudiced his defense. Before making a motion, counsel must be aware of some basis in law or fact from which relief can be granted. Bloomquist, 914 P.2d at 821. Prejudice cannot result from counsel's failure to make such a motion when that relief is not available. Id. Appellant has not cited to anything in the record that suggests the jury was distracted from the evidence or that defense counsel's effectiveness was in any way diminished following the remarks. Absent sufficient actual prejudice to appellant, there was no basis in fact to support granting a mistrial. Ryan v. State, 988 P.2d 46, 62 (Wyo.1999). [¶ 50] It is clear from what transpired when appellant later elaborated on his concerns to the district court that appellant essentially placed the issue of defense counsel's continued representation before the district court. In light of that discussion, the district court's ruling on the issue, and our finding that appellant did not thereby demonstrate good cause to justify substituting counsel, a formal motion to withdraw would have been superfluous.