Court Opinion

ID: 9390718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 14:05:10.915706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:36.175858
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: APRIL 21, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2022-CA-0665-MR

BRANDON ENGSTROM                                                     APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
v.                HONORABLE KATHLEEN S. LAPE, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 21-CR-00697

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                               APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; KAREM AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Brandon Engstrom appeals from his conviction

and argues that the trial court should have granted a continuance to allow him to

hire private counsel. We find no error and affirm.
                       FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                Appellant was indicted for trafficking in marijuana between eight

ounces and five pounds,1 driving while under the influence of a controlled

substance,2 and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia.3 Appellant was

appointed an attorney from the Public Defender’s Office to represent him at trial.

On the day of trial, Appellant informed the court that he wished to hire new

counsel. He stated that he did not believe his public defender had his best interests

in mind. He also stated that he had spoken to a private attorney and was going to

hire him when he received his tax refund. Appellant did not specifically ask for a

continuance. Defense counsel stated that he was prepared for trial and that this

request was the first he had heard about potential new counsel. The trial court

denied Appellant’s motion and the case proceeded to trial.

                Appellant was convicted of the trafficking and drug paraphernalia

charges. He was acquitted of the driving under the influence charge. Appellant

was sentenced to two years in prison. This appeal followed.

1
    Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 218A.1421(3).
2
    KRS 189A.010(1)(c).
3
    KRS 218A.500(2).

                                             -2-
                                    ANALYSIS

             Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court should have granted a

continuance to allow him to hire private counsel. Appellant concedes that he did

not specifically ask for a continuance; therefore, he requests that we review this

issue for palpable error.

             A palpable error which affects the substantial rights of a
             party may be considered by the court on motion for a
             new trial or by an appellate court on appeal, even though
             insufficiently raised or preserved for review, and
             appropriate relief may be granted upon a determination
             that manifest injustice has resulted from the error.

Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 10.26. “To discover manifest

injustice, a reviewing court must plumb the depths of the proceeding . . . to

determine whether the defect in the proceeding was shocking or jurisprudentially

intolerable.” Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Ky. 2006).

             Whether a continuance is appropriate in a particular case
             depends upon the unique facts and circumstances of that
             case. Factors the trial court is to consider in exercising
             its discretion are: length of delay; previous continuances;
             inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, counsel and the
             court; whether the delay is purposeful or is caused by the
             accused; availability of other competent counsel;
             complexity of the case; and whether denying the
             continuance will lead to identifiable prejudice. To
             warrant substitution of counsel, appellant must show: (1)
             complete breakdown of communications between
             counsel and himself, (2) a conflict of interest, or (3) that
             his legitimate interests are being prejudiced.

                                         -3-
Snodgrass v. Commonwealth, 814 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Ky. 1991) (citations

omitted), overruled on other grounds by Lawson v. Commonwealth, 53 S.W.3d

534 (Ky. 2001). The decision to grant a continuance is within the trial judge’s

discretion. Id. “[A] defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure

counsel of his own choice.” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S. Ct. 55, 58,

77 L. Ed. 158 (1932).

              Here, when we examine the Snodgrass factors through the lens of

palpable error, we conclude that the trial court made no error. Weighing in

Appellant’s favor is the fact that there had been no prior continuance requests.

Also, the only inconveniences would be the usual inconveniences of rescheduling a

trial. Further, the only witnesses to testify were those for the Commonwealth.

Those witnesses were all employees of the state which suggests there would be

little inconvenience to them if the trial were rescheduled.

              On the other hand, the case was not very complex and would not

require a specialized defense attorney. Also, the evidence of trafficking was

overwhelmingly against Appellant; therefore, there is no evidence of prejudice to

Appellant.4 The police found over eight ounces of marijuana after searching

Appellant’s car. Appellant also made statements incriminating himself in

4
 The trafficking charge was the only felony for which Appellant was on trial. The other charges
were misdemeanors. As it was the only felony, and was the cause of his two-year sentence, we
are primarily focusing on it.

                                              -4-
trafficking activities. Further, the police found a digital scale, a grinder, and plastic

baggies inside the car. Appellant also had over three thousand dollars in his

possession. All of this points to trafficking in marijuana.

               As for the availability of other counsel, while Appellant stated he

wanted to hire private counsel, he had yet to do so and was relying on a speculative

amount of money to do so. Had Appellant already had new counsel, or even had

the tax refund money in his possession, maybe this factor would have been in his

favor. Furthermore, because Appellant did not ask for a continuance, we do not

know how long of a delay would have been reasonable to hire this new attorney.

                                   CONCLUSION

               Based on the foregoing, we affirm. The trial court did not err in

failing to grant Appellant a continuance or the chance to hire a private attorney.

There was no palpable error or manifest injustice in the failure to grant a

continuance.

               ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

 Adam Meyer                                 Daniel Cameron
 Frankfort, Kentucky                        Attorney General of Kentucky

                                            Robert Baldridge
                                            Assistant Attorney General
                                            Frankfort, Kentucky

                                           -5-