Opinion ID: 2031789
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: motion to dismiss counsel

Text: `[T]he right of an indigent defendant to have counsel does not give him the right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing, and mere distrust of, or dissatisfaction with, appointed counsel is not enough to secure the appointment of substitute counsel....' State v. Hoffman, 224 Neb. 830, 835, 401 N.W.2d 683, 686 (1987). When a defendant becomes dissatisfied with court-appointed counsel, unless he can show good cause to the court for the removal of counsel, his only alternative is to proceed pro se if he is competent to do so. State v. Bratton, 187 Neb. 460, 191 N.W.2d 612 (1971); State v. Clark, 216 Neb. 49, 342 N.W.2d 366 (1983). The exercise of the right to the assistance of counsel is subject to the necessities of sound judicial administration. State  v. Richter, 221 Neb. 487, 378 N.W.2d 175 (1985). Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to dismiss his court-appointed counsel and to appoint substitute counsel. At the hearing, it developed that defendant had requested his counsel to file motions for (1) dismissal for lack of evidence, (2) copies of police reports, (3) return of personal belongings held by the police, and (4) habeas corpus relief. The evidence was that defendant's counsel had filed a plea in abatement which was denied, that defendant did not understand the nature of a habeas corpus proceeding, and that the judge had informed defendant that as an alternative he could hire your own lawyer or you can represent yourself. The record shows nothing more than unfounded dissatisfaction with appointed counsel. No good cause having been shown, there was no abuse of discretion, and the motion was properly denied.