Valarde v. People
| Decision Date | 23 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 20839,20839 |
| Citation | 399 P.2d 245,156 Colo. 375 |
| Parties | Eugene VALARDE, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defnednat in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Hardin & Hermann, Wheat Ridge, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard W. Bangert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Eugene Valarde was convicted of burglary after a trial by jury. He was sentenced to serve not less than four years nor more than eight years in the State Penitentiary, and from that judgment he brings writ of error here.
Valarde contends (1) that he was deprived of his constitutional rights because the court refused to discharge his court appointed lawyer at his request and grant him a continuance of the trial: and (2) that there was insufficient evidence to warrant submission of his guilt to the jury. We point out that counsel representing Valarde on writ of error is not the same counsel who represented him in the trial court.
It is, of course, now clearly recognized that, by reason of Section 16, Article II of the Colorado Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding is entitled to have counsel appointed at the expense of the state to assist him in his defense. But the right to have state appointed sounsel does not carry with it the right in the indigent defendant to choose that counsel. When the state provides competent counsel, and that counsel ably and competently conducts the defense, the state has satisfied its constitutional obligation. Baca v. People, 139 Colo. 111, 336 P.2d 712. See also United States v. Gutterman, (2d Cir.1945), 147 F.2d 540, 157 A.L.R. 1221 for a full discussion of this principle decided under circumstances very similar to those present in the case before us. It is for the court, and not the defendant, to determine from the record whether a defense has been adequate. With the above principles in mind, we proceed to examine the fact situation in this case.
At Valarde's request, counsel was appointed for him some seven months before the trial. On the date of the trial, Valarde informed the court that he did not wish to go to trial with his court appointed lawyer. Valarde stated that he had the lawyer were incompatible; that the lawyer believed him guilty; and that he had also called him a liar and a cheat. On the other hand, the court appointed counsel advised the court, in response to the court's questions, that he was prepared and ready for trial. Under the circumstances disclosed at this state of the proceeding, the court thereupon ordered the matter to proceed to trial and denied defendant's request for a continuance.
The record of the trial clearly shows that Valarde's defense was alibi. To Support that defense, the court appointed counsel subpoenaed and placed upon the witness stand three witnesses. The motion requesting the subpoena stated that the defense was alibi, and also that these three witnesses were necessary to establish that defense. This motion was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raullerson v. Patterson
...F.2d 485; Reiff v. United States, 9th Cir. 1962, 299 F.2d 366; United States v. Burkeen, 6th Cir. 1966, 355 F.2d 241; Valarde v. People, 156 Colo. 375, 399 P.2d 245 (1965). 5 Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 850, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964), also Avery v. State of Alabama, 308 ......
-
People v. Schultheis, 80SC229
...(1973); Steward v. People, 179 Colo. 31, 498 P.2d 933 (1972); Martinez v. People, 173 Colo. 515, 480 P.2d 843 (1971); Valarde v. People, 156 Colo. 375, 399 P.2d 245 (1965). A refusal to call a particular witness because of an obedience to ethical standards which prohibit the presentation of......
-
People v. Carrillo, 95CA0299
...and that counsel ably and competently conducts the defense, the state has satisfied its constitutional obligation. Valarde v. People, 156 Colo. 375, 399 P.2d 245 (1965). In addressing defendant's separate equal protection argument, the threshold question is whether the state action has resu......
-
People v. Cardenas, 02SA236.
...of his choice. See People v. Coria, 937 P.2d 386 (Colo.1997); People v. Shook, 186 Colo. 339, 527 P.2d 815 (1974); Valarde v. People, 156 Colo. 375, 399 P.2d 245 (1965). If Defendant wants the state to pay the costs of his attorney and supporting services, his only choice is to be represent......