Opinion ID: 1644140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Withdrawal of trial counsel for appeal.

Text: Cochrun claims that his counsel should have been permitted to withdraw from representing him on appeal upon Cochrun's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. [] He claims this denial prejudiced his ability to assert the issue on appeal. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not ordinarily considered on direct appeal, but should be brought through post-conviction relief. State v. Aliberti, 401 N.W.2d 729 (S.D.1987); State v. Anderson, 387 N.W.2d 544 (S.D.1986); State v. Hammond, 357 N.W.2d 278 (S.D.1984). This court has created an exception where the representation was so ineffective and counsel's representation so casual that the trial record evidences a manifest usurpation of appellant's constitutional rights[.] State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 131 (S.D. 1982); Aliberti, supra . The ineffective assistance claim must rise to the level of plain error on direct appeal. Aliberti, supra . An examination of the record does not reveal a sufficient ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Cochrun's dissatisfaction with his court-appointed counsel is, without more, insufficient to overturn the denial of the motion to withdraw. State v. Seiss, 428 So.2d 444 (La.1983). Under this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. State v. Taylor, 211 N.W.2d 264 (Iowa 1973); People v. Wolff, 19 Ill.2d 318, 167 N.E.2d 197 (1960). AFFIRMED. WUEST, C.J., and MORGAN and MILLER, JJ., concur. HENDERSON, J., specially concurs.