Opinion ID: 1057579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the denial of mr. hester's request for a continuance

Text: Mr. Hester asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motion to continue the trial after the court permitted one of his two lawyers to withdraw from the case approximately one week before trial. Even though he conceded that the lawyer appointed to replace the withdrawn lawyer had done a good job, Mr. Hester, stressing the importance of a second attorney in a capital case, insisted that a week was insufficient to enable the new lawyer to prepare for a capital proceeding. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mr. Hester's request for a continuance. We reach the same conclusion. On September 9, 2004, the trial court removed Mr. Heinsman as Mr. Hester's lead counsel and replaced him with Ms. Parton who had been serving as co-counsel. At this point, Mr. Heinsman had been lead counsel for Mr. Hester for almost three years. Mr. Hester objected to this action and actively resisted this ruling, as discussed above, for the next five months. A dispute existed between August 2004 and February 2005 regarding Mr. Heinsman's and Ms. Parton's respective roles on Mr. Hester's defense team. On February 25, 2005, Ms. Parton moved to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Hester based on advice she had received from the Board of Professional Responsibility. On February 28, 2005, the trial court convened a hearing on Ms. Parton's motion. The State was not present at this hearing at the request of the defense. Ms. Parton revealed at this hearing that (1) Mr. Hester did not accept the trial court's decision to designate her rather than Mr. Heinsman as his lead counsel, (2) during a February 25, 2005 meeting with Mr. Hester without Mr. Heinsman being present, Mr. Hester intimidated her and made death threats against her family, (3) Mr. Hester had declined to work with her in any meaningful capacity, (4) Mr. Hester regularly cursed her, and (5) Mr. Hester had stomped out of meetings with her in fits of rage. Ms. Parton stated that she had been mentally ... affected by [Mr. Hester's] comments threatening her family and that she believed that Mr. Hester blamed her for the trial court's decision to replace Mr. Heinsman as lead counsel. She concluded by observing that realizing fully that we're a mere one week away from trial, [the threat to have her family killed] of course could be a ploy on Mr. Hester's part to finally and decisively ... be rid of me as counsel in his case. If so,... I have reached my point of no return. I have my limits, and they were reached.... In answer to the trial court's questions, Mr. Hester stated that he was agreeing with ... [Ms. Parton] to withdraw. For his part, Mr. Heinsman voiced no objection to Ms. Parton withdrawing as counsel for Mr. Hester. The trial court concluded that Mr. Hester's threats against Ms. Parton and her family were the result of the court's decision to replace Mr. Heinsman with Ms. Parton and were part of Mr. Hester's efforts to achieve his goal of having Mr. Heinsman as his lead counsel. Nevertheless, the trial court permitted Ms. Parton to withdraw and designated Mr. Heinsman as Mr. Hester's lead counsel. The trial court also reminded parties that trial was set to begin in eight days. The trial court also determined that Mr. Hester had waived his right to his second lawyer at a trial based on his conduct with Ms. Parton. In response to Mr. Heinsman's request for yet another continuance, the trial court stated, you've had... three years on this case, $150,000.00 plus attorney fees? You've got to be ready for trial next Tuesday, nine o'clock.... I'll give you an opportunity to recruit someone to assist you and ... I'll approve it. But otherwise ... let's ... be ready to go at nine o'clock Tuesday morning. The trial court filed two orders on March 2, 2005 confirming its decision to permit Ms. Parton to withdraw, designating Mr. Heinsman as lead counsel, and appointing Lee Davis as co-counsel for Mr. Hester. As scheduled, the trial commenced with jury selection on March 8, 2005. Decisions regarding a request for a continuance are discretionary ones. State v. Thomas, 158 S.W.3d 361, 392 (Tenn.2005) (appendix); State v. Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469, 517 (Tenn.2004) (appendix); State v. Odom, 137 S.W.3d 572, 589 (Tenn.2004). Reviewing courts will not overturn these decisions in the absence of a finding of an abuse of discretion and proof that the denial of the continuance either deprived the defendant of a fair trial or caused an outcome that would not have occurred had the continuance been granted. State v. Rimmer, 250 S.W.3d 12, 40 (Tenn.2008) (appendix); State v. Odom, 137 S.W.3d at 589. A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn.2008). Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 13, § 3(b)(1) states that [t]he court shall appoint two attorneys to represent a defendant at trial in a capital case. As valuable as two attorneys may be in a capital case, this is not a rule of constitutional dimension. Defendants facing the death penalty do not have a per se constitutional right to the assistance of two attorneys. Bell v. Watkins, 692 F.2d 999, 1009 (5th Cir.1982); Arrington v. State, 286 Ga. 335, 687 S.E.2d 438, 448 (2009); Davis v. State, 743 So.2d 326, 340-41 (Miss.1999). Mr. Hester has shown no constitutional basis that would require a second attorney in this particular case. When Mr. Hester threatened the lives of Ms. Parton and her family, he engaged in serious misconduct on the eve of his long-delayed trial. The trial court found that Mr. Hester's actions were in response to its earlier decision to designate Ms. Parton as his lead counsel and were calculated to manipulate the judicial process to remove Ms. Parton as lead counsel and to replace her with Mr. Heinsman and to cause further delay. When Mr. Heinsman moved for another continuance in order to find another lawyer and to enable this lawyer to prepare for trial, the trial court considered (1) that Mr. Heinsman had already served as Mr. Hester's lead counsel for approximately three years, (2) this case had already encountered lengthy delays, many of which were caused by the defense, (3) that the conduct immediately causing this request for continuance was Mr. Hester's intentionally disruptive conduct directed at Ms. Parton and her family, and (4) that Mr. Hester's conduct was directed at countermanding a court order through a threat of violence. In light of these circumstances, the non-constitutional nature of Mr. Hester's right to the assistance of a second lawyer at trial, and the dearth of evidence or authority presented by Mr. Hester requiring a different conclusion, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court when it declined to grant Mr. Hester's request for a continuance.