Opinion ID: 2570218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to hold a hearing on Garcia's motion to dismiss counsel

Text: Garcia argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to hold a hearing on his motion to remove counsel, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. At the August 21, 2003, calendar call, just a few days before his trial was scheduled to begin, Garcia filed a written motion in open court to dismiss his counsel and for the appointment of new counsel. Garcia sought removal of counsel for the following reasons: (1) failure to communicate, including failure to visit him at the Clark County Detention Center; (2) failure to investigate; (3) failure to discuss his being forced into a plea bargain; (4) failure to address mistaken information regarding prior felonies and the influence of this information on his plea negotiations; and (5) failure to investigate and use available resources to obtain a fair sentence. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Garcia's motion. This court recently addressed the issue of the district court's denial of a motion to substitute counsel in Young v. State. [13] In that case, we noted that we have previously held that `[w]here a motion for new counsel is made considerably in advance of trial, the [district] court may not summarily deny the motion but must adequately inquire into the defendant's grounds for it.' [14] Initially, it is important to note that a defendant in a criminal trial does not have an unlimited right to the substitution of counsel. [15] Absent a showing of sufficient cause, a defendant is not entitled to the substitution of court-appointed counsel at public expense. [16] Nevertheless, when there is a complete collapse of the attorney-client relationship, the refusal to substitute counsel violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. [17] Young set forth three factors to consider when reviewing a district court's denial of a motion for substitution of counsel. The three factors are: (1) the extent of the conflict between the defendant and his or her counsel, (2) the timeliness of the motion and the extent to which it will result in inconvenience or delay, and (3) the adequacy of the court's inquiry into the defendant's complaints. [18] We review the district court's denial of a motion to substitute counsel for an abuse of discretion. [19]