Arroyo v. State, 2013 Ark. 244

Arroyo challenged his postconviction relief denial under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.
He was convicted of methamphetamine possession, drug paraphernalia possession, maintaining a drug premises, and simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, with a total sentence of 29 years.
On the eve of trial, Arroyo sought to substitute new counsel due to a perceived conflict, and the circuit court denied a continuance seeking replacement counsel.
Prior to trial, counsel for Arroyo (Hensley) and a potential substitute (Adcock) participated in a colloquy; the court declined to grant a continuance.
The circuit court later rejected Arroyo’s claim that the denial of the continuance violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, and this Rule 37 appeal followed.
The majority reverses and remands for a new trial, holding the circuit court misapplied the test for counsel-of-choice rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Arroyo was denied counsel of choice.	Arroyo argues denial of continuance violated Gonzalez-Lopez.	State contends the court balanced calendar and needs; no abridgment occurred.	Yes; denial was wrongful and requires reversal/remand.
Whether the circuit court properly balanced right to counsel against fairness and calendar.	Arroyo contends court failed to balance interests and inquire about reasons for change.	State asserts broad discretion to manage calendar and delays.	No; court failed to balance and inquire, leading to error.
Whether the petition could be raised in Rule 37 despite not raising at trial.	Constitutional error is structural; proper to raise via Rule 37.	Gonzalez-Lopez analysis governs; record supports no error.	Structural error; permissible to raise; remand for new trial.

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (right to counsel of choice is not subject to harmless-error review when denied)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (broad trial court discretion to grant continuances)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (trial courts have latitude in scheduling; avoid delays without compelling reasons)
Campania Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust, 290 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2002) (court balance of right to counsel vs. calendar demands)
Tyler v. State, 265 Ark. 822 (Ark. 1979) (considerations for continuance and change of counsel in Arkansas)
Leggins v. State, 271 Ark. 616 (Ark. 1980) (factors for considering continuance requests)
Thorne v. State, 601 S.W.2d 889 (Ark. 1980) (case-by-case assessment of continuance necessity)
Sasser v. State, 338 Ark. 375 (Ark. 1999) (Rule 37 issues and preservation of error)
Springs v. State, 2012 Ark. 87 (Ark. 2012) (structural or fundamental errors exception to Rule 37)
Daniels v. State, 2013 Ark. 208 (Ark. 2013) (recognition of structural error in right to counsel of choice)