Opinion ID: 1517574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Right to Choose Counsel

Text: Appellant contends the trial court violated his right to choose his own counsel by ruling that Mr. O'Bryant, with whom appellant now claims he had not established an attorney-client relationship prior to the continuance hearing on November 20, 1985, must try the case. A defendant has a constitutionally protected right to choose his own counsel, arising out of both the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and notions of due process under the Fifth Amendment. Such right includes a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice. Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, 439, 78 S.Ct. 1287, 2 L.Ed.2d 1448 (1958) (quoting Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932)) (other citations omitted). The Supreme Court held in Powell that the failure of the trial court to give [defendants] a reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel was a clear denial of due process. 287 U.S. at 71, 53 S.Ct. 55. This right is not absolute, however, and `cannot be insisted upon in a manner that will obstruct an orderly procedure in courts of justice, and deprive such courts of the exercise of their inherent powers to control the same.' Lee v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 274, 235 F.2d 219, 221 (1956) (quoting Smith v. United States, 53 App.D.C. 53, 55, 288 F. 259, 261 (1923)). The right may be balanced against other factors by the trial court in order to prevent the administration of justice from being impeded. Douglas v. United States, 488 A.2d 121, 143 (D.C.1985) (citation omitted). We are not persuaded that the record factually supports appellant's claim that the trial court deprived him of his right to retain counsel of his choice. Thompson was unavailable to practice law and would continue to be unavailable for nearly three months. Furthermore, appellant's claim that he did not know who Mr. O'Bryant was, and that he had not established an attorney-client relationship with Mr. O'Bryant, though expressed by appellant at the § 23-110 hearing, are noticeably absent from the record of the continuance hearing before Judge Moultrie. Mr. O'Bryant entered his appearance as appellant's counsel, and nothing in the record of that hearing suggests that this appearance was only for the purpose of requesting a continuance for Mr. Thompson, as appellant now claims. In appellant's original motion for a continuance, Mr. O'Bryant expressed that Mr. Thompson can no longer represent the defendant, and that defendant requests to have a fair opportunity and reasonable time to employ counsel of his choosing to wit attorney Adgie O'Bryant, Jr. At the time of the continuance hearing, therefore, it appeared that appellant had chosen Mr. O'Bryant to represent him. [7] Judge Moultrie did not violate appellant's right to counsel of his choice by ruling that he go to trial with an attorney who appeared to be of his choosing. Following the hearing on appellant's § 23-110 motion, the trial court found that Mr. O'Bryant had indicated that he would take the case if financial arrangements could be made, and his prior, counsel Mr. Thompson, informed O'Bryant that appellant's family would make those arrangements. The trial court further found that Mr. O'Bryant sought a continuance specifically for the purpose of affording the Yancey family and Mr. Thompson more time to make firm financial arrangements for hiring Mr. O'Bryant. [8] Appellant had spoken to Mr. O'Bryant before he entered his appearance. Thus, it appears that appellant had in fact chosen Mr. O'Bryant as Mr. Thompson's successor, with only the financial arrangements to be resolved. The record of the continuance hearings and the § 23-110 hearing support the conclusion that appellant had in fact chosen Mr. O'Bryant as his counsel, although counsel sought more time to finalize financial arrangements and to prepare for trial. Under these circumstances, we do not view this to be a case where appellant was deprived of his right to select counsel of his choice. In Part IV of this opinion, we consider appellant's argument that the denial of a longer continuance deprived him of effective assistance of counsel.