Court Opinion

ID: 9718471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:24:57.87255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:59.543116
License: Public Domain

D. F. Walsh, P. J.
Defendant was charged with armed robbery. MCLA 750.529; MSA 28.797. He was tried by a jury, convicted and sentenced to a term of 8 to 20 years imprisonment. He appealed and was granted a new trial. People v Hooper, 395 Mich 807; 235 NW2d 745 (1975), reversing 62 Mich App 181; 233 NW2d 225 (1975). On retrial, he was again convicted and again sentenced to 8 to 20 years in prison. He now appeals his second conviction.
On the second day of his second trial, defendant expressed dissatisfaction with the attorney assigned to represent him and requested the trial court to appoint a different attorney. The court made careful inquiry as to the basis for defendant’s dissatisfaction, hearing from both the defendant and assigned counsel. Thereafter he ruled that there was no adequate reason for replacing the attorney originally assigned and denied the request.
An indigent defendant is not entitled to choose his own attorney simply by requesting that the attorney originally appointed be replaced. Where there has been a breakdown in the relationship between defendant and assigned counsel, however, and that breakdown is based upon substantial grounds successor counsel should be appointed. *716People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).1
Defendant in this case stated that he wished to assert an alibi defense requiring the testimony of a witness defense counsel was unwilling to call. Defense counsel confirmed that defendant had requested that the alibi defense be used but that he (defense counsel) rejected the request because, in his judgment, it would not have been in the defendant’s best interests. The witness was not subpoenaed.
Normally, as the trial court properly ruled, disagreements involving professional judgment as to trial strategy do not constitute substantial grounds for appointment of successor counsel. The jealous protection with which the law guards an accused’s right to counsel, however, requires appointment of a new attorney when there is genuine disagreement over the use of a substantial defense, such as alibi, in a criminal prosecution. People v Charles O Williams, 386 Mich 565; 194 NW2d 337 (1972).
Since such a dispute existed in this case, defendant’s request for substitution of counsel should have been granted. Accordingly, we must reverse and grant new trial.
Reversed.
R. M. Maher, J., concurred.

 See American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Providing Defense Services, §5.3.