Court Opinion

ID: 9549760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:24:32.540612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:53.474410
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the opinion of Justice Bakes affirming the decision of the trial court. However, I would have preferred to base the decision more narrowly than did the Court of Appeals. In my view, the record here indicates that on March 26, 1985, when the trial was resét to begin on May 7, 1985, Carman had an opportunity to renew his request to substitute counsel of his own choosing and did not do so. This was only two weeks after the trial court had refused *193to continue the trial until April or May to accommodate Mr. Smith’s calendar. So far as the record here reflects, on March 26 Carmen could have secured the assistance of Mr. Smith or some other attorney of his own choosing. The record reflects that he did not at that time even raise an objection to being represented by the public defender at trial.
The following colloquy took place between the trial court and Carman on March 26:
THE COURT: You do understand, Mr. Carman, you have a right to a speedy and public trial under the Constitution of this state and the Federal Constitution; you understand that right?
MR. CARMAN: Yes, sir, I do.
THE COURT: You are willing to waive it so that this matter can be set for trial on May 7th?
MR. CARMAN: Yes.
THE COURT: The trial will be vacated today and reset for May 7th at 9:00. You’ll have to be here for the trial at that time, Mr. Carman. And I would caution you to keep in close touch with your counsel as a condition of your release so that he’ll be able to have your assistance and contact you if necessary to prepare for trial. You understand?
MR. CARMAN: Yes, Your Honor. I’ve tried to stay in close contact with him.
There is no indication in this exchange that Mr. Carman was dissatisfied with the representation of the public defender or that he wished to attempt to employ Mr. Smith or some other private attorney to represent him at trial, t would prefer to affirm the trial court’s decision on the ground that any objection there might have been to the denial of a continuance on March 12 became moot when a continuance was granted on March 26. However, since a majority of the Court does not share this view, I concur in the opinion of Justice Bakes.