Charles Frederick Secrest v. The State of Wyoming, 310 P.3d 882

In August 2011 Secrest struck Zach Barnes with a beer bottle, causing facial lacerations; charged with aggravated assault and battery.
Case filed October 2011; trial originally set for April 2012, later continued to June 25, 2012 after substitution of public defender.
One week before trial Secrest retained private counsel and moved to continue so new counsel could prepare; he also filed to substitute counsel and the public defender moved to withdraw.
The State opposed continuance citing witness availability, memory fading, and prejudice; the court denied the continuance and denied substitution/withdrawal but allowed private counsel to assist at trial.
Jury convicted Secrest of aggravated assault and battery, marking special verdict boxes for "attempted to cause" and "intentionally caused" but not "knowingly caused" bodily injury with a deadly weapon.
Secrest appealed, arguing (1) denial of right to counsel of choice and (2) inconsistency in verdict form requiring a new trial.

Issue	Secrest's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether denying a continuance to allow newly retained counsel time to prepare violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice	Denial impermissibly interfered with his right to counsel of choice and effective assistance	Court scheduling, witness prejudice, prior delays, and Secrest’s late retention justified denial	Denial affirmed — abuse of discretion not shown; court properly balanced rights against fairness and calendar concerns
Whether jury verdict/special findings were inconsistent such that judgment is invalid	Jury found "intentionally" but not "knowingly" causing injury, creating inconsistency and invalid verdict	Statutory alternatives permit conviction on any listed mental state; inconsistent entries do not void verdict absent insufficiency	No plain error — findings consistent with statute (disjunctive mental states); inconsistencies (if any) do not require reversal

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (recognizes trial court’s wide latitude balancing right to counsel of choice against court calendar)
United States v. Mendoza-Salgado, 964 F.2d 993 (10th Cir.) (factors for weighing continuance to allow counsel of choice)
United States v. Kelm, 827 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir.) (continuance factors including inconvenience and prior continuances)
United States v. Burton, 584 F.2d 485 (D.C. Cir.) (consider whether other competent counsel is prepared; prejudice required)
Grady v. State, 197 P.3d 722 (Wyo.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuances)
Sincock v. State, 76 P.3d 323 (Wyo.) (continuance rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Jealous v. State, 267 P.3d 1101 (Wyo.) (plain-error standard; inconsistencies in verdicts generally not reversible)
Moore v. State, 80 P.3d 191 (Wyo.) (jury need not be consistent across counts; sufficiency controls)
Burnett v. State, 267 P.3d 1083 (Wyo.) (statutory disjunctive mental states: jury may convict on any listed mental state)