Court Opinion

ID: 9522557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:28:53.659084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:15.899783
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GOLDBERG delivered the opinion of the court: Appellate counsel for defendant John Finley have petitioned for a rehearing. They repeat their contention that the rights of defendant Finley were violated in that he had no counsel during disposition of the post-trial motion and sentencing. Counsel also urge that this court seems to have found “considerable fault” with the defendant for simply making “this request for a change of counsel 6 ” We will therefore amplify with greater detail the pertinent facts relating to this issue. January 27, 1977 — Jury verdict of guilty returned. February 24, 1977 — The trial court was advised of the death of privately retained counsel for defendant Finley. Public Defender James O’Regan tendered to the trial court an affidavit reflecting indigency of Finley. Defendant Finley told the court, “I would like a Public Defender to file a motion for a new trial.” The court then suggested that Mr. O’Regan, or any other public defender, file an appearance for defendant Finley. Finley then reaffirmed to the trial court his desire that Mr. O’Regan handle his motion for new trial. March 17, 1977 — Defendant Finley advised the trial court that he had prepared and wished to file his own motion for a new trial. He added that he was not “able to relate to the Public Defender in filing this motion for a new trial.” The trial court noted that the public defender had already filed a motion for new trial in behalf of Finley. Defendant Finley repeated, “I really wouldn’t like for the Public Defender to represent me because we can’t seem to relate on anything else.” Finley then asked the court to have his pro se motion “stamped filed.” Colloquy then took place between the court and counsel regarding appointment of a bar association attorney for Finley as stated in the above opinion. March 28, 1977 — Mr. O’Regan asked the trial court “" ° * am I representing Mr. Finley?” The trial court responded, “Speak for your own man.” Mr. O’Regan then told the court that he had received a letter from co-defendant Laney requesting a bar association attorney. Co-defendant Laney affirmed that he wished to be represented by public defender O’Regan. Mr. O’Regan then argued the motion for new trial in behalf of co-defendant Laney. In response to an inquiry by the trial court, defendant Finley stated he had nothing more to say but affirmed that he would “incorporate” the same argument made in behalf of the codefendant. Finley also added that he had made the arguments in his motion for new trial and there was nothing else that he wished to say. Mr. O’Regan then stated to the trial court that defendant Finley was not represented by an attorney “and I don’t believe that Mr. Finley has waived his right to counsel.” The trial court then asked defendant Finley if he wished to incorporate this argument of Mr. O’Regan in his own favor. Finley refused and told the court once more, “I’m not represented by the Public Defender.” Both defendants affirmatively refrained from making any statement to the court concerning the presentence reports which both had seen. The State’s Attorney made a short statement in aggravation. His statement regarding defendant Finley covers one-half of one page of the transcript. Mr. O’Regan then again told the court that defendant Finley was not represented by counsel. The court asked defendant Finley if there was anything that he cared to say. Finley replied negatively. After sentence, defendant Finley told the court, “At this time, I would like to make all the motions for appeal and ask for an I-Bond on appeal.” The trial court denied this motion. Defendant Finley then stated, “I want the Public Defender to represent me on the appeal.” Mr. O’Regan filed a notice of appeal in behalf of Finley. The following colloquy occurred: “THE COURT: Are you withdrawing your request for a Bar Association attorney? DEFENDANT FINLEY: On appeal, yes.” It is our opinion that the trial court would have had no justification to provide defendant Finley with any legal representation other than the public defender. This conclusion is fortified by the authorities cited in our original opinion herein. The single remaining expedient was for defendant Finley to act pro se, as he did. Upon this further analysis we reaffirm the conclusion reached in our opinion that the proceedings before the trial court were fair and that defendant Finley was not prejudiced by any action of the trial court. The petition for rehearing is accordingly denied. McGLOON and BUCKLEY, JJ., concur.