State v. Clayton
Docket: 12880
Court: Idaho Supreme Court; February 22, 1980; Idaho; State Supreme Court
John Earl Clayton was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder. As an indigent defendant, he was appointed counsel who represented him through multiple court appearances. Prior to trial, Clayton requested a substitution of counsel due to dissatisfaction with his appointed attorney. The trial court held a hearing but concluded there was no good cause for substitution, presenting Clayton with the option to continue with his attorney or represent himself. He chose to proceed pro se, although the court required the appointed counsel to remain present during the trial. Following the trial, the jury convicted Clayton of the lesser charge of assault with a deadly weapon, resulting in a five-year concurrent sentence. Clayton argued that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated, claiming the court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into his conflict with the attorney, which he believed affected counsel's effectiveness. The court reiterated established principles that indigent defendants have a right to appointed counsel and effective assistance, but not necessarily to counsel of their choosing. The trial court has discretion to appoint new counsel for good cause. Defendants can reject appointed counsel and self-represent, but must be made aware of the risks involved in self-representation to ensure that such a waiver is informed. The court noted that Clayton's concerns about his attorney's "desire" for competence were subjective and lacked supporting evidence of incompetence, and the court deemed a more detailed inquiry unnecessary. The trial judge's role is not to advocate for the defendant but to ensure the defendant has a fair opportunity to present facts supporting a motion for substitution of counsel. In this case, the defendant was given sufficient opportunity to express his concerns about appointed counsel's alleged incompetency but failed to provide substantial comments beyond an emotional outburst regarding the lack of proper counsel. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for substituted counsel, as the defendant did not create a record to substantiate his claims. Additionally, the trial court diligently informed the defendant of the risks associated with self-representation, which the defendant ultimately chose. It is permissible for the court to appoint "standby" counsel for assistance if requested. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Justices BAKES, McFADDEN, BISTLINE, and SCOGGIN concur in this decision.