Opinion ID: 1911174
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Appointment of Substitute Counsel.

Text: Approximately one week prior to the date scheduled for trial the defendant wrote to the court requesting the appointment of new counsel. He cited strategic differences with his counsel, counsel's failure to properly investigate his case, and the failure of counsel to communicate with him. Specifically, his letter complained that his lawyer had failed to (1) secure expert testimony concerning difficulties in Caucasians identifying black persons, (2) spend adequate time consulting with him, (3) obtain pictures of a look-alike for whom Brooks contends he was mistaken, and (4) check jail records to see if Brooks might have been in jail at the time of the offenses. In the face of these assertions, Brooks' attorney moved to withdraw from the case. She stated that she was prepared for trial, but the defendant's lack of confidence in her made it difficult for her to continue. The court denied both the motion to withdraw and the defendant's request for substitute counsel. A defendant must demonstrate sufficient cause to warrant the appointment of substitute counsel. State v. Webb, 516 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Iowa 1994). The court has substantial discretion in ruling on such matters, particularly when the motion is made on the eve of trial, as here. See State v. Hutchison, 341 N.W.2d 33, 42 (Iowa 1983). Appellate review is for abuse of discretion. Webb, 516 N.W.2d at 828; Hutchison, 341 N.W.2d at 41-42. Sufficient reasons include a conflict of interest, an irreconcilable conflict with the client, or a complete breakdown in communications between the attorney and the client. Webb, 516 N.W.2d at 828. A defendant must ordinarily show prejudice, unless he has been denied counsel or counsel has a conflict of interest. Williams v. Nix, 751 F.2d 956, 960 (8th Cir.1985). In the present case, Brooks must show prejudice because he does not claim either of the last two Williams grounds. Brooks' complaint regarding his lawyer's failure to obtain photos of a look-alike was effectively neutralized by a pretrial photo identification in which the officers identified Brooks from a group of persons selected by Brooks. Also, it was clear that the look-alike did not have a particular scar that made Brooks' appearance unique. As to Brooks' claim that his attorney failed to secure the appointment of an expert witness to testify to the problems of cross-racial identification, the defendant could have suffered no prejudice because the court made it clear in its ruling that it would not have allowed such testimony anyway. We find that none of the claims of pretrial ineffectiveness, including counsel's failure to check the jailhouse roster, were substantial enough to mandate the appointment of substitute counsel, and we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to do so.