People v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 31 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 5660,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 171 N.W.2d 592,18 Mich.App. 526 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Fred D. Falkinburg, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, James K. Miller, Pros. Atty., Kent County, Grand Rapids, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and V. J. BRENNAN, JJ.
Defendant, Eddie Edwards, was charged with felonious assault and tried before a Kent county circuit judge sitting without a jury. Shortly before the trial began, defendant requested the court to appoint different counsel as he was dissatisfied with his court-appointed attorney's preparation for trial. The trial court inquired into the possible causes of his discontent, found none of merit, and told defendant that his attorney was capable of conducting an adequate defense. The trial court also informed defendant that he could either dismiss his attorney and defend himself, or he could continue with said counsel.
Counsel remained and defendant Edwards without his objection. The judge found Edwards guilty and subsequently sentenced him to a term of 2 1/2 to 4 years. An associate of the court-appointed attorney represented Edwards during the sentencing proceeding, as the court-appointed attorney had fallen seriously ill. Edwards did not object to the substitution.
On appeal Edwards assigns as error an alleged refusal by the trial court to permit him to choose between continuing with the appointed attorney and defending himself. This allegation is unfounded. The record does not disclose an unwillingness on the trial court's part to permit a defense In propria persona, nor does it contain an expression by defendant of a desire to represent himself. Aware of the alternatives open to him, defendant had sufficient opportunity before the trial began to make his decision known, or, if he was undecided, to communicate his indecision to the court.
Defendant also contends the trial court erred by denying his request for a different attorney, although he does not maintain that his trial counsel was incompetent. The right to assigned counsel does not extend to counsel of the indigent defendant's own choosing. People v. LaMarr (1965), 1 Mich.App. 389, 136 N.W.2d 708. Therefore the denial of appellant's request does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wilson, Docket No. 12735
...L. Thomas, 1 Mich.App. 118, 134 N.W.2d 352 (1965); People v. LaMarr, 1 Mich.App. 389, 136 N.W.2d 586 (1965); People v. Edwards, 18 Mich.App. 526, 171 N.W.2d 592 (1969). This rule cannot be deemed controlling since the dominant purpose of defendant's request was merely to obtain a substituti......
-
People v. Smith, Docket No. 8686
...claim reversible error. In Theodorou there was no representation at sentencing. The case before us is controlled by People v. Edwards (1969), 18 Mich.App. 526, 171 N.W.2d 592 and no error is Affirmed. * ROBERT W. McINTYRE, Circuit Judge for the County of Hillsdale, appointed by the Supreme ......
-
People v. Miller, Docket No. 5852
...with his appointed counsel and sought an adjournment at the outset of the trial to obtain other counsel. See also People v. Edwards (1969), 18 Mich.App. 526, 171 N.W.2d 592. Second, defendant claims he was deprived of his right to a fair and impartial trial when the trial judge, sitting as ......
-
People v. Cummings
...by another from the same office at sentencing. Defendant fails to even allege prejudice from that substitution. See People v. Edwards, 18 Mich.App. 526, 171 N.W.2d 592 (1969). 1 In return for the plea, the prosecutor agreed not to proceed under the Habitual Offender Act, M.C.L. §§ 769.10-76......