State v. Breneman, 2012 Ohio 2534

Breneman was convicted of possession of crack cocaine (5–10 g) in Urbana; sentencing followed.
Dec. 26, 2009, Breneman called 911 alleging he’d been robbed; later told operator he was no longer in danger.
Police found seven grams crack cocaine, $771, cell phone, and address book on Breneman; crack pipe and scale recovered in nearby alley.
Indicted Feb. 4, 2010 for possession, trafficking, and criminal tools; Breneman was indigent, counsel appointed, and Settina sought entry as substitute counsel.
Trial court denied substitute counsel and requested continuance; suppression hearing delayed; Breneman was eventually tried with appointed counsel.
After a two-day jury trial Breneman was found guilty of possession and sentenced to two years; appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying substitution of counsel?	Breneman timely sought substitute counsel and a continuance for adequate preparation.	Right to counsel of choice requires substitution; calendar needs allowed for preparation.	Yes; trial court abused discretion; substitution granted and remanded.
Is Breneman's ineffective-assistance claim moot after sustaining the first issue?	N/A	N/A	Moot; second assignment dismissed.

Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (Supreme Court 1988) (right to counsel of choice has limits; fundamental fairness emphasized)
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court 2006) (courts balance counsel of choice against fairness and calendar)
State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 335 (Ohio 2001) (trial court discretion in substitution of counsel; factors to consider)
Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (Ohio 1981) (continuance factors and impact on fairness and efficiency)
State v. Keenan, 81 Ohio St.3d 133 (Ohio 1998) (presumptive right to counsel of choice; exceptions apply)