Court Opinion

ID: 9728307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:04:23.264989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.534956
License: Public Domain

M. F. Cavanagh, P.J.
(dissenting). I dissent from the majority opinion but rely upon it for a summary of the factual development of this case. It should be additionally noted that the suggested identification to which defendant’s originally appointed counsel objected occurred when defense counsel thought that he noticed the officer in charge of the case motion to the two prosecution witnesses as if to point out the defendant as he was brought into the courtroom. Defendant Fox had been included in a previous corporeal line-up, but the complaining witness was unable to identify him at that time as the perpetrator of the charged offense. There can be no doubt, then, that defendant’s identification was a crucial issue in this case.
*332When Judge Ravitz ordered a new trial he offered the following three reasons as the basis for his decision:
"But there’s nothing on this record that begins to hint at a proper basis to put defense counsel summarily out of the case. That’s number one. That’s my finding factually and legally.
"Secondly, I don’t believe that the defendant has to voice an objection, because you just can’t make that the test in my judgment. Because the defendants that might need the help the most, those least capable of voicing objection, would be those mis-treated or abused the worst.
"Thirdly, on the question of prejudice, I indicated for the record, and it should be clear, I don’t see prejudice. But, you often don’t see prejudice. And it’s a part of my holding today that prejudice need not be shown in a situation where an indigent’s right to the originally appointed counsel is trampled upon by a court without good cause.”
The people assert that defendant’s failure to object at the time that his appointed counsel was dismissed should preclude relief. However, as Judge Ravitz notes, it is most likely that the class of defendants most prone to suffer from such mistreatment are those who would typically fail to formally preserve an issue by objecting. At the time of the incident in issue, defendant Fox was 18 years old and had only an eighth grade education. Under the circumstances, it is not difficult for me to perceive why he did not object. Furthermore, given the constitutional dimensions of the issues here involved, a failure to object should be deemed to be legally irrelevant. People v Hoerl, 88 Mich App 693, 696; 278 NW2d 721 (1979).
By summarily dismissing defendant’s counsel without good cause, which point is conceded by all *333parties, the examining magistrate improperly and impermissibly interfered with defendant’s constitutional right to counsel. "* * * [0]nce counsel is appointed to represent an indigent defendant, * * * the parties enter into an attorney-client relationship which is no less inviolable than if counsel had been retained.” Harling v United States, 387 A2d 1101, 1106 (DC App, 1978). Because counsel was prevented from continuing his representation of defendant, it is impossible to ascertain how well he would have performed had he been allowed to carry through. Moreover, it is not important that no affirmative showing of prejudice to defendant has been made, since "[t]he right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial”. Harling, supra, 1106, citing from Glasser v United States, 315 US 60, 76; 62 S Ct 457; 86 L Ed 680 (1942). It is my concern as well that to overturn the ruling of Judge Ravitz in this matter might well discourage the best possible representation for indigent defendants by court-appointed counsel. I would affirm the decision of the lower court.