Court Opinion

ID: 9677302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:48:52.267773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:55.149874
License: Public Domain

Spencer and Smith, JJ.,
concurring.
We are in full agreement with the majority opinion herein, but believe that a statement therein should be reiterated to demonstrate the fallacy of the premise on which the dissent herein is based.
As stated in the majority opinion, the trial court specifically found “that the defendant did in fact, within the time required, demand of his trial counsel that an appeal be taken, and that counsel refused to do' so-.” As the dissent concedes, the defendant had a right to an appeal. He also had a court-appointed counsel, and had a right to expect that counsel, upon request, to perfect his appeal. If counsel, for sufficient reason, does not wish to proceed further, he must do what is necessary to protect his client’s rights and then request the appointing court for leave to withdraw from the case. Until such leave is granted, counsel is required to- protect his client’s rights. Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U. S. ——■, 87 S. Ct. 996, 18 L. Ed. 2d 33, requires no less-.