Court Opinion

ID: 9714906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:48:52.566942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:29.612861
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HALL dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I believe that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court violated the defendant’s sixth amendment right to counsel when it refused to allow him to withdraw his waiver of counsel and instead required that he represent himself at trial. I also believe the trial court compounded this constitutional error when it inexplicably denied defendant’s request for standby counsel. In ruling on a motion for a continuance to permit the substitution of counsel, a trial court must balance a defendant’s sixth amendment right to counsel against the public’s interest in the prompt and efficient administration of justice (People v. Bingham, 364 Ill. App. 3d 642, 645, 847 N.E.2d 903 (2006)), by considering the following factors: the length of the requested delay; whether other continuances have been requested and granted; the inconvenience to the litigants, witnesses, counsel, and court; whether the requested delay is for legitimate reasons or is contrived; whether the defendant contributed to the circumstances giving rise to the requested delay; whether defendant has other competent counsel prepared to try the case; and the complexity of the case. See United States v. Burton, 584 F.2d 485, 490-91 (D.C. Cir. 1978); United States v. Leavitt, 608 F.2d 1290, 1294 (9th Cir. 1979); see also People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 130-31, 902 N.E.2d 691 (2009) (trial court abused its discretion and committed plain error in denying defendant’s motion for a continuance to allow defense counsel extra time to provide proper representation where court failed to consider relevant factors courts are generally required to consider before deciding whether to deny such a motion). Analysis of these factors indicates the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant a continuance to permit him to obtain counsel. The trial court stated that it was rejecting defendant’s day-of-trial request for appointment of counsel out of concern for delay, but the record shows that after defendant made his request, the court continued the case for a day or two for a fitness evaluation and other matters. At the very least, the trial court should have contacted previously appointed counsel who was familiar with the case to determine how long it would take him to prepare for trial. Moreover, there is no indication the trial court ever inquired as to the potential inconvenience, if any, the parties or witnesses might experience if a continuance were granted. In addition, there is no indication that the State was any less responsible for the delays where it requested and was granted a number of continuances and where approximately three-quarters of the continuances were by agreement. The record also shows that several of the continuances were due to the fact that private counsels withdrew because defendant lacked adequate funds. Another extremely important factor to consider is that the trial court’s decision resulted in defendant — who had recently been receiving psychotropic medication — representing himself in a complex jury trial for first-degree murder without any assistance of counsel. The cases the State and majority rely upon are fundamentally distinguishable from the present case, because in those cases the denial of the request to substitute counsel resulted in the defendants proceeding to trial with unwanted counsel as opposed to no counsel at all. Finally, I believe the trial court compounded the constitutional error when it inexplicably denied defendant’s request for standby counsel. See, e.g., German v. State, 268 Ind. 67, 73, 373 N.E.2d 880, 883 (1978) (appointing standby counsel is the recommended procedure to preserve a defendant’s rights when he elects to represent himself at trial); Jackson v. State, 441 N.E.2d 29, 33 (Ind. App. 1982) (appointment of standby counsel is an appropriate prophylactic device when a defendant assumes the burden of conducting his own defense). I would vacate the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.