2008AP2342-CR State v. Jones

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Right to counsel

Indigent defendants do not have a right to reject appointed counsel in favor of substitute counsel.

"Jones has not cited any case where a court has so held, and we are unaware of any. Of course, nothing bars a defendant from requesting substitution of counsel, nothing bars the SPD from choosing to make substitute counsel available, and nothing bars a court from granting such a request. The question is whether a court is required by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Article I, Section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution to do so solely because a defendant requests it. This court and the United States Supreme Court have held that it is not. As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals put it, the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee 'a friendly and happy attorney-client relationship,' but rather effective assistance of counsel. Even if Jones was dissatisfied with the number of letters and visits from his counsel, and took offense at counsel's assessment of the strength of the case, it is evident from the record that counsel visited Jones, wrote him letters, conveyed plea offers, reviewed discovery with him and discussed with him during trial matters such as the defendant's decision about whether to testify. It is clear that the two communicated and that an adequate defense was presented. There was therefore no violation of Jones' right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under the Wisconsin Constitution, and the circuit court properly denied Jones' motion for a new trial on that basis."

Affirmed.

2008AP2342-CR State v. Jones

Crooks, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Henak, Ellen, Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Pray, Eileen W., Madison

Full Text