Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneyhearingtrialmotiondue processjury trial

defendanthearingmotiondue process

Related Cases

State v. Berrysmith, 87 Wash.App. 268, 944 P.2d 397

Facts

Lionel Berrysmith was charged with delivery of cocaine after selling rock cocaine to an undercover officer. On the first day of his jury trial, his attorney moved to withdraw, citing a belief that Berrysmith intended to commit perjury. The motion was granted in an in camera hearing that Berrysmith did not attend. Following the withdrawal, Berrysmith was allowed to represent himself, but later sought dismissal of the charges, claiming he was forced to do so. The trial continued with a new co-counsel appointed to assist him.

Lionel Berrysmith was charged with delivery of cocaine in violation of RCW 69.50.401(a)(1)(i) , after selling rock cocaine to an undercover Seattle Police officer during a “buy-bust” operation in Seattle.

Issue

Did the trial court err in allowing Berrysmith's attorney to withdraw without his presence at the in camera hearing, and were his rights to a speedy trial violated?

Berrysmith contends that the in camera hearing was a critical stage of the proceedings because the motion to withdraw required the resolution of disputed facts, i.e., whether Berrysmith truly intended to commit perjury.

Rule

A defendant has a constitutional right to be present at critical stages of the proceedings, but this right does not extend to hearings that are purely legal in nature, such as a motion to withdraw based on ethical obligations regarding potential perjury.

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to be present during all “critical stages” of the criminal proceedings.

Analysis

The court determined that the in camera hearing was not a critical stage of the proceedings because it dealt solely with the attorney's ethical obligations and did not involve factual disputes that would affect Berrysmith's defense. The attorney's belief that Berrysmith intended to commit perjury was deemed reasonable based on the evidence presented, and thus, the withdrawal was appropriate. The court also found that the delay caused by the attorney's withdrawal did not violate Berrysmith's right to a speedy trial.

We conclude that withdrawal of counsel in these circumstances is a matter governed by ethical standards and is, therefore, a matter of law.

Conclusion

The court affirmed Berrysmith's conviction and dismissed his personal restraint petition, concluding that his due process rights were not violated by the attorney's withdrawal or the subsequent trial delay.

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and dismiss the personal restraint petition.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the conviction and found no violation of Berrysmith's rights.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Fassihi v. Sommers, Schwartz, Silver, Schwartz & Tyler, P.C., 107 Mich.App. 509, 309 N.W.2d 645

Texas v. United States, 50 F.4th 498

In re Scott Acquisition Corp., 344 B.R. 283, 46 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 196

Jacobson v. Knepper & Moga, P.C., 185 Ill.2d 372, 706 N.E.2d 491, 235 Ill.Dec. 936, 78 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1160, 137 Lab.Cas. P 58,562, 14 IER Cases 1160

Walker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 321 So.2d 833 (Mem)