State v. Cousin
Decision Date | 20 January 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 55318,55318 |
Citation | 307 So.2d 326 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Edward COUSIN. |
John J. Dolan, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
By bill of information the District Attorney for the Parish of Orleans charged defendant with robbing Charles Marino of $170 while armed with a pistol. The defendant was tried by jury, found guilty as charged, and sentenced to serve thirty years in the custody of the Director of the Department of Corrections. He has appealed and relies on four bills of exceptions.
In his per curiam to these bills the trial judge said:
this case was transferred to this Section of Court under the rules of Court. A pretrial conference was held in this matter December 14, 1973 and defendant was represented by Mr. Maurice Hattier, also of the Orleans Indigent Defender Program. After pre-trial conference this case was set for trial with the joint consent of the District Attorney and the attorney of the O.I.D.P. Office. At approximately 4:30 PM January 17, 1974, the day before trial, Mr. John Dolan, attorney herein, telephoned the Court and orally requested a continuance, stating he had just been retained by the defendant's father. This motion was denied and counsel was informed that the case was specially set for trial, that pre-trial conference had taken place, and that Mr. Barry Viosca, of the Orleans Indigent Defender Program was ready for trial and represented the defendant.
The ruling denying the continuance was correct. La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 712. An accused has the right to counsel of his own choosing to defend him on a criminal charge. U.S.Const. amend. VI; La.Const. art. I, 9; La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 511. However, this right does not permit arbitrary action which obstructs orderly procedure in the courts. United States v. Bentvena, 319 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1963). Rather, the right to choose one's attorney is a right to be exercised at a reasonable time, in a reasonable manner, and at an appropriate stage within the procedural framework of the criminal justice system of which it is a part. Further, absent a justifiable basis, there is no constitutional right to make a new choice of counsel on the very date the trial is to begin, with the attendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Scott
....... The question of withdrawal of counsel largely rests with the discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Brown, 03-0897, p. 15 (La.4/12/05), 907 So.2d 1, 14; State v. Cousin, 307 So.2d 326, 328 (La. . Page 917 . 1975); State v. Boudoin, 257 La. 583, 588-89, 243 So.2d 265, 267 (1971). . In the present case, the trial court appointed Susan Jones as lead counsel to represent defendant on June 15, 1998. Subsequently, Ms. Jones filed a motion to ......
-
State v. McCoy
...1050 ; State v. Johnson, supra at 1304 ; State v. Lee, supra at 1028 ; State v. Leggett, 363 So.2d 434, 436 (La. 1978) ; State v. Cousin, 307 So.2d 326, 328 (La. 1975). Absent a justifiable basis, "[t]here is no constitutional right to make a new choice of counsel on the very date the trial......
-
State v. Bridgewater
......Leggett, 363 So.2d at 436 . A trial court's ruling on this issue will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Cousin, 307 So.2d 326, 328 (La.1975) . . In the instant case, defendant voiced the same strategic conflict with prior counsel, Armato, as he had with his trial counsel, Dohre. Given that this was (as the state suggests) becoming a "pattern," that defendant had already gone through two ......
-
State v. Brown
...... at 162, 108 S.Ct. 1692 . The question of withdrawal of counsel largely rests with the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Cousin, 307 So.2d 326, 328 (La.1975) ; State v. Boudoin, 257 La. 583, 588-89, 243 So.2d 265, 267 (1971) . . Defendant's assignment of error on this matter is without merit, as the trial court was within its great discretion in finding that defendant's allegations of ineffective ......