Opinion ID: 2040895
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Continuance to Change Lawyers

Text: On the morning of trial, appellant's counsel orally moved for a continuance to enable Roberts to hire a new attorney. Roberts asserts that the trial court's denial of his request violated his Sixth Amendment right to be represented by counsel. Whether to grant a defendant's request to change counsel immediately before trial is a matter consigned to the sound discretion of the trial court. Averhart v. State (1984), Ind., 470 N.E.2d 666. The trial court's determination will be set aside only when it constituted a clear abuse of discretion which prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial. Alexander v. State (1983), Ind., 449 N.E.2d 1068. Motions for continuance to hire a new lawyer made on the morning of trial are particularly disfavored because granting them causes substantial loss of time for jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and the court. Bedgood v. State (1985), Ind., 477 N.E.2d 869. Roberts simply asserts that he wanted to change lawyers. There is not the slightest indication of whom he wanted to hire, why he wanted to change, or what deficiency in the performance of his current counsel prejudiced his rights. The trial court appropriately denied his request. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.