State v. Johnson, 435 P.3d 64

Johnson, an indigent defendant, was charged with felony aggravated assault and represented by appointed public defender John Hud after an earlier appointment of Michael Usleber.
Hud became temporarily unavailable, and at an August status hearing Johnson raised but then withdrew complaints about Hud; the court reset trial to October 19.
On the morning of the October 19 trial, Johnson renewed complaints that Hud failed to file requested pretrial motions, had limited meetings, did not interview witnesses, and changed his phone number; he asked for substitute counsel.
The district court conducted an on-the-record, but brief, inquiry, heard Hud’s explanations, denied substitution as the trial was about to start, and proceeded to trial with Hud; Johnson was convicted by a jury.
At sentencing months later, communication had fully broken down; the court then appointed new counsel for sentencing but Johnson appeals the denial of substitution on October 19.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying substitution of counsel?	Johnson: court failed adequate inquiry and should have granted new counsel because communication and counsel performance prevented effective assistance.	State: court performed adequate initial inquiry; complaints were not "seemingly substantial" and some complaints were trial strategy matters reserved for appeal/postconviction.	Court affirmed: initial inquiry adequate; complaints were not seemingly substantial and largely implicated trial strategy/communication issues not warranting immediate substitution.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (recognizes circumstances warranting presumption of prejudice when counsel’s assistance is effectively absent)
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (right to counsel as essential to being heard)
State v. Aguado, 387 Mont. 1 (Mont. 2017) (prior Montana substitution-of-counsel precedent discussed)
State v. Cheetham, 384 Mont. 1 (Mont. 2016) (prior Montana law on substitution and adequacy of inquiry)
State v. Gallagher, 304 Mont. 215 (Mont. 2001) (recognizes substitution when total lack of communication exists)
Daniels v. Woodford, 428 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.) (constructive denial of counsel doctrine)
United States v. Jones, 795 F.3d 791 (8th Cir.) (standards for substitute counsel for irreconcilable conflicts)
United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976 (6th Cir.) (complete breakdown in communication standard)