Opinion ID: 2975974
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Choice of Counsel

Text: Shohatee argues that he was denied his right to retain counsel of his choice when the district court denied his motion for a continuance until the new lawyer would be available. The decision to grant a continuance (or as in Michigan, an adjournment) is within the discretion of the trial court. Bennett v. Scroggy, 793 F.2d 772, 774-75 (6th Cir. 1986). The Michigan courts found that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion when she denied the continuance because (1) Shohatee knew the date of sentencing and was not denied the opportunity to present witnesses or to have his counsel of choice present on that date, and (2) no appearance had been filed by the new attorney. Thus there was no denial of choice of counsel, only a denial of a continuance, which was within the discretion of the trial judge. The district court agreed: there was no indication of any problem with Nelson (existing counsel) and the victim would have been inconvenienced since she was present to testify that day. Because the decision is within the discretion of the trial court, and because there were legitimate reasons to deny the continuance, the Michigan courts did not unreasonably apply federal law when they denied relief on this ground. Furthermore, there is little evidence of any harm as a No. 06-1808 Shohatee v. Jackson Page 7 result of this decision since Nelson, Shohatee’s trial counsel, was able to reduce Shohatee’s sentence to the low end of the guidelines range.