Brewer v. State
2017 Ark. App. 335
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Christopher Brewer was charged and, after a bench trial, convicted of multiple offenses including commercial burglary, theft, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, five counts of theft by receiving, and possession of firearms by certain persons.
- Public defender Dennis Molock was initially appointed; Molock later moved for continuance due to a conflict and the case was reassigned to public defender Tim Blair.
- Brewer waived a jury trial in March; the bench trial was scheduled for May 3, 2016.
- On the morning of trial Brewer asked for time to retain private counsel (saying he had come into money) and sought to withdraw his jury waiver; both requests were made the day of trial.
- The circuit court denied both requests as delay tactics, finding Brewer was "gaming the system," and proceeded with the bench trial; Brewer was convicted and appealed, arguing deprivation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice.
Issues
| Issue | Brewer's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying a day-of-trial request to retain private counsel violated the Sixth Amendment | Brewer argued the court deprived him of his right to counsel of choice by refusing a continuance to hire private counsel | The State argued the request was untimely, strategic, and would disrupt court schedule and administration of justice | Denial affirmed: right to counsel of choice is not absolute; court properly weighed factors and denied continuance |
| Whether court erred in denying withdrawal of jury-waiver on day of trial | Brewer sought to revoke his waiver to obtain jury trial with retained counsel | State contended the request was last-minute and disruptive | Denial affirmed: court reasonably concluded request was tactical and would burden docket |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. State, 441 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (right to counsel of choice is not absolute and may be limited to preserve court administration)
- Bullock v. State, 111 S.W.3d 380 (Ark. 2003) (courts may limit chosen counsel when necessary to maintain orderly administration of justice)
- Liggins v. State, 463 S.W.3d 331 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (trial court must balance defendant’s choice of counsel against scheduling and docket needs)
- Thorne v. State, 601 S.W.2d 886 (Ark. 1980) (factors for granting continuances tied to fair, efficient, and effective administration of justice)
- Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (trial courts need latitude in scheduling; continuances disfavored absent compelling reasons)