Smith v. Workman, 5:09-cv-00293

Petitioner Michael DeWayne Smith, after being dissatisfied with his initial counsel, was appointed new counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(e) in October 2023.
In December 2023, Smith sought the removal of his new counsel, but the court denied the request and retained current counsel.
Petitioner’s counsel then filed a motion to withdraw, citing tensions with Smith, and requested an in-camera hearing.
The court reviewed both the oral and written submissions from counsel regarding the withdrawal motion.
Upcoming critical deadlines include Smith's clemency hearing packet due on February 16 and the clemency hearing scheduled for March 6, 2024.
The court considered statutory requirements and procedures from both federal law and Oklahoma administrative codes regarding representation in clemency proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether current counsel may withdraw	Tension irreparably harms representation	Withdrawal not proposed or timely	Withdrawal by current counsel not allowed
Whether new equally-qualified counsel required	Removal permissible without replacement	Must have replacement counsel per statute	No replacement proposed, so withdrawal denied
Whether withdrawal is in interest of justice	Change would serve justice given conflict	Disruptive to upcoming hearing schedule	Not in the interest of justice due to timing
Scope/duration of appointment under § 3599(e)	Representation should end before clemency	Appointment covers all clemency processes	Appointment continues through clemency proceeding

Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. 648 (2012) (interprets standards for withdrawal and replacement of counsel under § 3599(e) in capital cases)
Christenson v. Roper, 574 U.S. 373 (2015) (clarifies there is no right to counsel of choice for indigent defendants under § 3599)