State v. Settle
| Decision Date | 09 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-316,84-316 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire, v. John A. SETTLE, Jr. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Stephen E. Merrill, Atty. Gen. (Tina Schneider, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief), by brief for State.
Pizzimenti & Immen, Concord (Dennis Pizzimenti on brief), by brief for defendant.
The defendant appeals his misdemeanor conviction in Concord District Court (Robbins, J.) for willful concealment and shoplifting, RSA 644:17 (Supp.1983). He contends that the court's continuance of his June 28, 1984 trial from the morning to the afternoon deprived him of effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel, who was assigned by the public defender's office to the case that same morning, had inadequate preparation time. We disagree and therefore affirm.
The facts of this case are not disputed. The defendant was arrested on February 5, 1984 and arraigned on March 6, 1984. He initially appeared pro se and was provided with discovery from the State after his arraignment. On the first trial date, April 10, the defendant was granted a continuance. On the second trial date, June 5, he asserted his constitutional right to counsel, and the public defender's office was appointed to represent him. He was granted a second trial continuance until June 28. In the twenty-three days between the second and third trial dates, the defendant, who appears from the record to be intelligent and experienced in the law, failed to take any meaningful steps to contact the public defender or to ensure that his defense was prepared.
At issue on appeal are the court's June 28, 1984 continuance of the trial and the effectiveness of defense counsel. The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on motions to continue, and we will not reverse the ruling absent an abuse of discretion. See State v. Barham, 126 N.H. 631, 640, 495 A.2d 1269, 1275 (1985). Moreover, the Federal Constitution does not mandate a per se rule that short preparation time for counsel necessarily results in ineffective assistance. See, e.g., United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2048-49, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). Rastrom v. Robbins, 440 F.2d 1251, 1253-54 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 863, 92 S.Ct. 53, 30 L.Ed.2d 107 (1971). The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also stated that determinations of ineffective assistance of counsel claims are essentially ad hoc, and approved a totality of the circumstances test. Id. at 1252-53. We think this standard is the appropriate one under part I, article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution.
Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Settle
...for examination by attorney general in course of inquiry into defendant's alleged unauthorized practice of law); State v. Settle, 127 N.H. 756, 512 A.2d 1083 (1986) (affirming conviction for shoplifting). In addition to the published opinions in these cases, the court's records include an o......
-
State v. Knowles, 87-125
...trial court's sound discretion, and we will not reverse the trial court's determination absent evidence of abuse. State v. Settle, 127 N.H. 756, 757, 512 A.2d 1083, 1084 (1986); State v. Hood, 127 N.H. 478, 481, 503 A.2d 781, 784 (1985). Upon review of the record here, we hold that the tria......