Opinion ID: 1932173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the trial court err in denying the motion for leave to obtain new counsel?

Text: On the day trial began, Wheeler made a motion for new counsel. This motion was untimely made and, therefore, not worthy of favorable consideration. Collins v. State, 369 So.2d 500 (Miss. 1979); McClendon v. State, 335 So.2d 887 (Miss. 1976). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling this motion. In addition, a criminal defendant is not entitled to expert counsel, or to counsel of his own choosing, but only to reasonably effective assistance of counsel. Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195, 1204 (Miss. 1985); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Counsel is presumed to be competent. If counsel is reasonably effective in the defense of an accused, he meets constitutional standards, irrespective of the client's evaluation of his performance. Johnson at 1204. The trial judge noted that counsel had represented Wheeler in a prior capital murder trial and had done a very fine, very professional expert job in that trial. As such, counsel met the constitutional requirements.