Opinion ID: 1712849
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: brooks' attempts to retain counsel of choice

Text: The first claim presented by Brooks regarding his legal representation at trial focuses on his attempts to retain counsel of his choice. Brooks asserts that approximately one week prior to trial, the trial court denied his request for a continuance to enable him to retain private counsel. Based on this alleged denial of a continuance, Brooks argues that the trial court did not afford him a sufficient opportunity to retain counsel of his choice as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The record in this case, however, refutes Brooks' claim. Brooks was arrested in connection with this case on September 20, 1996, and the trial court appointed the public defender to represent him. On September 24, 1996, following certification of conflict by the public defender's office, the trial court appointed attorney Jeff Morrow to represent Brooks. Thereafter, on November 21, 1996, the trial court granted Brooks' first motion for continuance. On February 3, 1997, after being advised by Brooks that he was not satisfied with Mr. Morrow's representation, the trial court appointed attorney Richard Nichols to represent him. During a hearing held on February 7, 1997, Brooks informed the trial court that his family was supposed to have a lawyer by the 21st, but the court had already scheduled jury selection in the trial to begin on February 24. At that point, the trial court explained that it had (1) previously appointed able defense counsel, Mr. Morrow, but Brooks could not get along with him; (2) there had been no showing that Mr. Morrow was incompetent, but, in an abundance of caution, the court appointed Mr. Nichols to represent Brooks; and (3) if Brooks intended to retain private counsel, he needed to do so soon because the trial would begin on February 24, 1997. On February 24, the trial court again granted Brooks a continuance to enable him to retain private counsel, Wade Rolle, and to give Mr. Rolle an opportunity to prepare for trial. The following day, Mr. Rolle was present in court, and the trial court agreed to pass the case for one week to determine if Mr. Rolle would, in fact, represent Brooks, and to set a new trial date. On March 3, 1997, Mr. Nichols was present in court, but Mr. Rolle did not appear. Instead, the prosecutor informed the court that Mr. Rolle had left a phone message that he had not been retained yet. One of Brooks' family members present in the courtroom replied, We're supposed to take care of it today. The trial court agreed to pass Brooks' case once again. Apparently, satisfactory arrangements could not be reached with Mr. Rolle, and another attorney, Butch Berry, informed the prosecutor that he might represent Brooks; Mr. Berry never entered an appearance in the case. Thereafter, on March 11, 1997, another attorney, Donald Mathews, appeared in court and announced that Brooks' family had approached him to retain his legal services. The trial court stated that the next pretrial conference was to be held on March 18, and Mr. Mathews would need to inform the court at that time whether or not he would actually represent Brooks. At this point, Mr. Nichols still continued to represent Brooks. On March 18, Brooks' case again was passed, with Mr. Nichols still representing Brooks; Mr. Matthews never entered an appearance in the case. On April 9, 1997, the name of another defense attorney, Janine Sasser, was mentioned in open court. Mr. Nichols stated that he had been advised that Ms. Sasser had been retained and was going to make an appearance on Brooks' behalf. The trial judge announced that jury selection was set for April 21, 1997, and Mr. Nichols agreed that he was ready to try the case as scheduled. On April 15, 1997, Ms. Sasser was present in court and stated that she wished to enter the case, but because she could not try the case on April 21, she would need a continuance. The trial court recognized Brooks' right to retain counsel of choice, but noted that Brooks remained indigent and at a certain point the court cannot be manipulated further. The court required Mr. Nichols to continue representing Brooks, but also asked the attorneys, including Ms. Sasser, if they had any case law indicating that Brooks had the right to a continuance under the given circumstances. The court continued the case to enable the parties to research whether Brooks was entitled to have Ms. Sasser represent him. Two days later, it was made known in open court that Ms. Sasser was unable to represent Brooks due to a conflict of interest. Therefore, Mr. Nichols remained Brooks' counsel, and he represented Brooks throughout the trial below. Based on the facts set forth above, it is clear that Brooks' claim here lacks merit. The trial court clearly afforded Brooks numerous opportunities to retain counsel of choice, and contrary to Brooks' assertions in this Court, the trial court here actually granted a continuance in consideration of Ms. Sasser's possible representation to ascertain whether another continuance should be granted so that Ms. Sasser could prepare to represent Brooks at trial. Moreover, Ms. Sasser ultimately could not represent Brooks due to a conflict of interest. Accordingly, we reject Brooks' claim here. Cf. Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244, 249-50 (Fla.1995) (finding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying second motion for continuance where case had been pending for at least ten months, defense counsel still had over three weeks to prepare for trial, and no was prejudice shown); Grossman v. State, 525 So.2d 833, 836 (Fla.1988) (finding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's third request for a continuance filed four days prior to trial).