Cited by

¶15 Structural error “affects ‘the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.’” –44, ¶ 11 (2004).

¶16 To protect this constitutional right, the superior court “has the duty to inquire as to the basis of a defendant’s request for substitution of counsel.” ¶ 7 (2004).

¶16 An indigent criminal defendant has a right to competent counsel, but “is not entitled to counsel of choice, or to a meaningful relationship with his or her attorney.” ¶ 6 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

¶ 11 (2004) (listing examples of structural error, including “complete denial of counsel [and] a biased trial judge”).

¶9 To protect this constitutional right, the trial court “has the duty to inquire as to the basis of a defendant’s request for substitution of counsel.” ¶ 7 (2004).

¶ 6 (2004) (explaining courts are generally compelled to appoint new counsel for represented defendants “when there is a complete breakdown in communication or an irreconcilable conflict between a defendant and his appointed counsel.”).

See, ¶ 7 (2004) (discussing the superior court’s duty to inquire about “the basis of a defendant’s request for substitution of counsel”) (emphasis added); -87 (1987) (discussing the factors the superior court should consider when ruling on a motion for change of counsel).

¶ 15 (2004) (alteration in original and citation omitted).

If, however, “a defendant is forced to go to trial with counsel with whom he has an irreconcilable conflict or a complete breakdown in communication, a resulting conviction must be reversed.” ¶ 6 (2004).

¶ 6 (2004) (citations omitted).

An indigent defendant, however, is not “entitled to counsel of choice, or to a meaningful relationship with his or her attorney.” ¶ 6 (2004) (quoting State v. Moody (“Moody I”), ¶ 11 (1998)).

at a critical stage of his trial.” Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659; see also Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 343–45 (1963) (characterizing complete denial of counsel as structural error); ¶ 11 (2004).

Burgess argues that a trial judge is required to hold a hearing on a defendant's request for substitution of counsel.

-88 ¶¶ 19-37 (2005) (affirming denial of defendant’s request for new counsel); ¶ 8 (2004) (holding that court must grant a request for new counsel where a defendant establishes an “irreconcilable conflict with his attorney”).

¶185 But “[t]he nature of the inquiry will depend upon the nature of the defendant’s request.” ¶ 8 (2004).

9 STATE v. BRITTON Decision of the Court ¶32 An indigent criminal defendant has a right to competent counsel, but “is not entitled to counsel of choice, or to a meaningful relationship with his or her attorney.” ¶ 6 (2004) (internal quotation omitted).

at 330, ¶ 11 , ; see also State v. Torres , , 342, ¶ 6, ; Zarabia v. Bradshaw , , 3, ; State v. DeLuna , , 500-01

2 STATE v. BERRY Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶5 Defendant first asserts that the trial court violated his “Sixth Amendment right to counsel by failing to hold a hearing pursuant to State v. Torres [,] and by failing to appoint alternate counsel to remedy an irreconcilable conflict.” We disagree.