Opinion ID: 2517736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Motion to Withdraw from Representation

Text: We have held that motions for withdrawal of counsel are addressed to the discretion of the court and will not be reversed unless clear error or abuse is shown. Riley v. Dist. Court, 181 Colo. 90, 93, 507 P.2d 464, 465 (1973). The statute governing a public defender's request to withdraw from a case provides as follows: To request withdrawal from a case due to a conflict of interest, the state public defender shall submit to the court having jurisdiction over the case a motion specifically describing the nature of the conflict of interest. If the state public defender determines that ethical obligations prevent a specific description of the nature of the conflict of interest, the state public defender shall cite any applicable legal authority for the determination, and the portion of the motion that specifically describes the nature of the conflict shall be sealed. In the event an issue arises later concerning whether an actual conflict existed, the sealed portion of the motion may be opened and examined by the original judge or by another judge if necessary to prevent the violation of an ethical obligation. § 21-2-103(1.5)(a), C.R.S. (2006). In making withdrawal determinations, the trial court must balance the need for the orderly administration of justice with the fact that an irreconcilable conflict exists between counsel and the accused. People v. Schultheis, 638 P.2d 8, 15 (Colo.1981). Therefore, we have said that the court should consider the timing of the motion, the inconvenience to witnesses, the period of time elapsed between the date of the alleged offense and trial, and the possibility that any new counsel will be confronted with the same irreconcilable conflict. Id. at 15. It is the primary responsibility of the court to ensure the orderly administration of justice. Id. Based on the information presented to it in the two present cases, the trial court found within its discretion that it was not a conflict of interest to investigate initially whether the defendants had an ineffective assistance of counsel contributing to their prior convictions. Thus, there existed no irreconcilable conflict of interest for the trial court to weigh against the orderly administration of justice. It was therefore within the trial court's discretion to deny counsel's motions to withdraw at least until there was a sufficient factual basis upon which to determine whether a full investigation of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims was warranted.