Court Opinion

ID: 9526939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:26:14.723727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:19.039739
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring.
In resolving the claim that the trial court committed error when denying the public *670defender’s motion for permission to withdraw, the majority opinion states that the legal standard to be applied when ruling on such a motion is whether a grant of the motion will result in delay in the administration of justice. This accurately follows the language employed in previous cases of this Court in which I have concurred, for example, most recently in Flowers v. State (1988), Ind., 528 N.E.2d 57. However, it now appears to me that this formulation may be too abstract and may be misleading. I take this opportunity to simply point out, as the actual handling of these claims on appeal demonstrates, that in addition to the element of delay, it is appropriate to consider other relevant factors, including but not limited to, the nature of the charges, the nature of the defense, defense preparations, and the extent and cause of any breakdown in communications between client and counsel. The range of appropriate factors would approximate the range of factors considered when ruling on motions for continuance of the trial itself.
DICKSON, J., concurs.