Opinion ID: 1761289
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Right to Co-Counsel

Text: Defendant claims that he was denied the assistance of co-counsel to which he was entitled, and which he did not knowingly and intelligently waive, which prejudiced him with regard to the penalty phase. [5] Early in the proceedings, defendant became unhappy with the performance of the public defender assigned to the case and filed a pro se motion seeking a replacement. The trial court appointed Kevin Patrick Monahan, an attorney in solo private practice with a lot of experience in handling criminal cases, as lead counsel. The trial court insisted that the public defender remain as associate counsel until Monahan found another co-counsel, stating I think that it's in your best interest to at least have [the public defender] or somebody else, if Mr. Monahan finds somebody, to help him make decisions, help do legwork, help do some legal research, that type of thing. Monahan found Denise Vinet to act as co-counsel and she was substituted as co-counsel in October of 1993. On the Monday morning of trial, Monahan announced to the court that co-counsel Vinet was not present and no longer wanted to participate in the matter. Monahan asserted that he did not need Vinet's assistance and he was prepared to try the case alone. Vinet appeared in court the following day and told the judge that she did not think this would be a problem as Monahan had never asked her to do a thing on the case. Monahan additionally indicated that he and defendant had discussed the situation over the past two days. The court summarized developments, then addressed defendant: [Vinet] then informed Mr. Monahan on Friday that she didn't want to participate anymore. If you feel that she is necessary to your defense, maybe you've interviewed with her, talked with her, maybe she's gathered information that you know about that you would want her to be part of your defense team, then we can do so. I'll order her to be  to do so  to be here. If not, and if you feel comfortable and confident that Mr. Monahan is  uh  adequately prepared and you would have discussed that with him, then you can tell me you don't  you've waived Ms. Vinet's appearance for you. Which one do you want to do? Koon: I'd rather waive her appearance, your honor. This Court has long adhered to the view that the better practice is to appoint two attorneys to defend a capital case, allocating specifically to one the principal responsibility for preparing and presenting the defense case at the penalty phase. State v. Williams, 480 So.2d 721, 728, n. 14 (La.1985). This procedure is now provided for in Supreme Court Rule XXXI(J)(1)(a) which states that [i]n any capital case in which a defendant is determined to be indigent, the court shall appoint no less than two attorneys to represent the defendant. La.S.Ct.Rules, Rule XXXI(J)(1)(a) (Eff. June 1, 1994). However, as other sections of the Rule make clear, this does not give rise to an affirmative right to multiple attorneys in capital trials. See Rule XXXI (R) (The Rule shall not be construed to confer substantive or procedural rights in favor of any accused beyond those rights recognized or granted by the United States Constitution, the Louisiana Constitution, the laws of the state, and the jurisprudence of the courts. The system, programs, rules, procedures and standards included in, encompassed by, and resulting from this Rule shall not form a basis for a procedural or substantive attack in any case or proceeding pending or instituted in the Louisiana criminal justice system on or after the date this Rule is promulgated.) Even if defendant had a right to co-counsel, he waived that right after discussing it with counsel for two days and after an in-court advisement by the judge. The record thus reflects an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, all that is required to demonstrate a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. State v. Carter, 94-2859, p. 24 (La.11/27/95), 664 So.2d 367, 385. Assignment of Error No. IV lacks merit.