People v. Brown, 322 P.3d 214

Eric Lamont Brown was charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, attempted unlawful sexual contact, assault, and menacing; trial set after several continuances.
Public defender Cynthia Jones was appointed and prepared for trial; Brown’s family later retained private counsel David Foley shortly before trial.
Foley entered appearance 12 days before trial and requested a continuance 8 days before trial to prepare; Brown offered to waive speedy trial rights.
The prosecution opposed the continuance; the trial court denied Foley’s request, citing prior continuances, witnesses subpoenaed, and that Jones was ready and competent.
Trial proceeded with Jones; Brown was convicted and sentenced to 36 years to life.
The court of appeals reversed, adopting a four-factor test; the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, declined that test, adopted a broader multi-factor balancing approach, and remanded for additional findings because the record was incomplete.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denying a continuance to allow substitution of retained counsel was an abuse of discretion	Brown: Denial deprived him of Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice and was arbitrary because new counsel needed time to prepare	Trial court/People: Efficiency, prior continuances, witness inconvenience, and that appointed counsel was ready justified denial	Court: Trial courts must balance Sixth Amendment right against public interest; appellate review requires totality-of-circumstances; record here inadequate — remand for findings
What legal test governs continuance requests to change counsel	Brown: Court of appeals’ four-factor test protects counsel-of-choice right	People: Trial courts should retain broad discretion and consider circumstances already in record	Court: Rejects rigid four-factor test; adopts multi-factor balancing list (11 illustrative factors) and requires trial courts to make sufficient on-the-record findings to permit appellate review

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1932) (defendants should have fair opportunity to secure counsel of choice)
Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (right to counsel of choice must be balanced against court’s calendar and fairness)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (unreasonable insistence on expeditiousness in face of justifiable delay request violates right to counsel)
Rodriguez v. Dist. Court, 719 P.2d 699 (Colo. 1986) (counsel-of-choice right entitled to great deference)
People v. Hampton, 758 P.2d 1344 (Colo. 1988) (no mechanical test; abuse-of-discretion review based on totality of circumstances)
People v. Maestas, 199 P.3d 713 (Colo. 2009) (right to counsel of choice not absolute; may be limited by efficiency and integrity concerns)
United States v. Trestyn, 646 F.3d 732 (10th Cir. 2011) (multi-factor considerations for continuance to obtain counsel of choice)
Newton v. Dretke, 371 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2004) (similar multi-factor balancing for continuance requests)