State v. James Greer Daly, 161 Idaho 925

Background

In May 2012 James Greer Daly pled guilty to one felony count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor pursuant to a plea agreement; at sentencing he sought to substitute his retained counsel and to continue sentencing so new counsel could appear.
The district court denied both the substitution and continuance, sentenced Daly to 20 years (3 years fixed), and retained jurisdiction.
Daly’s first appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the $100 fee; in post-conviction proceedings the court found counsel ineffective for failing to notify Daly of the fee and re-entered judgment nunc pro tunc to restore appeal rights.
The Court of Appeals held it had jurisdiction and concluded Daly had not received a “full and fair” hearing on his motion to substitute counsel, and remanded for a hearing on substitution and continuance.
The State petitioned to the Idaho Supreme Court on whether the duty to inquire about substitution applies to retained counsel; the Supreme Court granted review and heard argument after denying a joint motion to dismiss.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court: it found jurisdiction proper and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying substitution and continuance, and that no duty to inquire exists for substitution of retained counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Daly)	Held
Jurisdiction to review claims after nunc pro tunc re-entry	Re-entry was insufficient to revive untimely appeal of original judgment	Re-entry restored appeal rights as ordered in post-conviction relief	Court: Jurisdiction proper because post-conviction remedy restored appeal rights and State conceded this posture applies
Denial of motion to substitute retained counsel at sentencing	District court properly exercised discretion; no duty to inquire for retained counsel	Denial violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice and court should have inquired	Court: No Sixth Amendment violation; denial within discretion; defendant waited until sentencing and delay motive supported denial
Denial of motion to continue to obtain new counsel	Further delay would be unreasonable; no counsel ready to proceed	Continuance necessary to secure counsel of choice	Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion; no other counsel identified and defendant gave no evidence of steps taken to retain replacement
Whether court must hold a hearing/inquire into reasons for substituting retained counsel	Duty to inquire applies only to appointed counsel; applying it to retained counsel would infringe counsel-of-choice right	Court must afford full and fair hearing (per Clayton) before denying substitution	Court: Clayton’s inquiry requirement applies to appointed counsel only; no duty to inquire for retained counsel so long as substitution wouldn’t substantially interfere with administration of justice

Key Cases Cited

Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (recognizing constitutional right to counsel of choice and limits on that right)
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (trial court’s discretion to limit counsel-of-choice for valid concerns)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (broad trial-court discretion on continuances; only arbitrary insistence on speed violates right to counsel)
Clayton v. State, 100 Idaho 896 (Idaho requires a full and fair opportunity to present reasons when seeking substitute appointed counsel)
Nath v. State, 137 Idaho 712 (discussing substitution of counsel and applicable standards)