State v. Finneman, 205 A.3d 1125

Defendant Finneman was convicted in municipal court of petty disorderly-persons harassment and appealed de novo to the Law Division.
At the Law Division, two court‑appointed pro bono attorneys were successively assigned and each moved to withdraw; FN1 was relieved in defendant's absence and FN2 was relieved after reporting inability to meet with defendant in her preferred locations.
Defendant was present at the second withdrawal hearing, expressed confusion about counsel withdrawals, denied wanting to represent himself, and reported courthouse-related fears and possible mistreatment by officers.
The trial judge did not conduct a Reddish‑type colloquy or otherwise confirm that defendant knowingly waived counsel, did not solicit defendant’s position on the merits, and did not offer alternatives (e.g., alternative meeting venues or replacing counsel).
The judge proceeded to decide the appeal de novo, entered findings, affirmed the conviction, and imposed probation, psychiatric evaluation, and monetary penalties without assigning new counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by failing to assign new counsel after two withdrawals	Prosecution: defendant proceeded on his own and missed filing deadline; no further delay necessary	Finneman: never requested self‑representation, did not waive counsel, and lacked legal ability to proceed pro se	Court: Reversed — judge should have ensured counsel was assigned or obtained knowing waiver; remand for new de novo trial with counsel assigned
Whether defendant forfeited right to counsel by conduct so severe as to justify withdrawal without replacement	Prosecution implied withdrawals justified by counsel’s concerns	Finneman: conduct was not extreme (no threats/physical abuse); withdrawals occurred without his input or notice	Court: Forfeiture standard not met; withdrawals did not justify depriving him of counsel without procedural safeguards

Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt, 58 N.J. 281 (1971) (importance of counsel for indigent defendants and necessity of assignment before conviction with serious consequences)
State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553 (2004) (requirements for valid waiver of right to counsel)
State v. King, 210 N.J. 2 (2012) (court must advise defendant of risks and consequences of self‑representation)
State v. Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499 (1992) (elements of colloquy to ensure knowing waiver of counsel)
Madden v. Delran, 126 N.J. 591 (1992) (duties of assigned counsel and expectation they competently prepare or seek replacement)
Parkell v. Danberg, 833 F.3d 313 (3d Cir. 2016) (value of pro bono counsel to indigent litigants)
United States v. Leggett, 162 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 1998) (forfeiture of right to counsel requires extremely serious misconduct)
United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092 (3d Cir. 1995) (discussing standards for forfeiture of counsel by defendant misconduct)
United States v. McLeod, 53 F.3d 322 (11th Cir. 1995) (defendant’s abusive conduct may forfeit right to counsel)
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. A.B., 231 N.J. 354 (2017) (trial judge’s discretion in courtroom control must still ensure parties can be heard)