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

defendantattorneytrialmotioncriminal lawmisdemeanorpublic defender

defendantlitigationattorneytrialmotioncriminal lawappellant

Related Cases

Stern v. County Court In and For County of Grand, 773 P.2d 1074, 58 USLW 2042, 16 A.L.R.5th 882

Facts

Ronald S. Stern, a licensed attorney in Colorado since 1974, was appointed to represent an indigent defendant charged with second degree assault and two misdemeanors after the public defender had a conflict of interest. Stern moved to withdraw, asserting he was incompetent due to a lack of recent experience in criminal law, claiming he had not represented a criminal defendant in eleven years. The county court denied his motion, prompting Stern to file a complaint in district court, which was dismissed.

Appellant, Ronald S. Stern, has been a licensed attorney in the State of Colorado since 1974. Stern practices law in Grand County, Colorado, a rural community with a relatively small population. A limited number of attorneys practice law in Grand County, and only two or three of them routinely practice criminal law. Stern's practice includes civil litigation, but he has limited experience in trying criminal cases.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by appointing an attorney with limited experience in criminal matters to represent a criminal defendant?

Rule

When an attorney appointed to represent a criminal defendant believes he is incompetent, he has the burden of proving his incompetence to the court, which must then decide whether the attorney can become competent or if co-counsel is necessary.

When an attorney who is appointed to represent a criminal defendant believes that he is incompetent to handle the case, he has the burden of proving his incompetence to the court, and if the attorney carries that burden, the trial court must then decide whether the attorney is capable of becoming competent on his own or whether the appointment of co-counsel is necessary until such time as the attorney becomes competent.

Analysis

The court found that Stern did not sufficiently demonstrate his incompetence beyond his own assertions. It noted that if he had met his burden, the trial court would have had to consider whether he could become competent or if co-counsel was needed. The court also referenced the ethical obligations of attorneys to serve when appointed, emphasizing that lack of recent experience does not automatically disqualify an attorney from representing a defendant.

Here, Stern made no sufficient showing that he is incompetent beyond merely asserting that this is true. In addition, we note that if Stern had met his burden of showing that he is incompetent, the district court believed that he is 'very capable of accomplishing th[e] task [of becoming competent].' Accordingly, we believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing Stern.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Stern's complaint, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing him as counsel.

Accordingly, the trial court's order is affirmed.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the District Court, as the Supreme Court affirmed its decision to deny Stern's motion to withdraw.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Lopez v. Clifford Law Offices, P.C., 362 Ill.App.3d 969, 841 N.E.2d 465, 299 Ill.Dec. 53

Johnson v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 52, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9098, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,014

Petrillo v. Bachenberg, 139 N.J. 472, 655 A.2d 1354, 63 USLW 2641

In re Scholastic Corp. Sec. Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 91939, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 90,744

Gagnon v. Shoblom, 409 Mass. 63, 565 N.E.2d 775