State v. Kates, 426 N.J. Super. 32

Kates was convicted of second-degree eluding and resisting arrest by flight after a high-speed chase in Bridgeton; several related counts were dismissed or acquitted.
The trial began with assigned public defenders Klavens and Stanfield; Klavens faced deployment orders, prompting a request to hire private counsel.
Kates sought a continuance to obtain private counsel; the court denied the request based on assurances that Stanfield was prepared to proceed.
The court did not inquire into defendant’s finances, the length of delay, or potential impact on witnesses or the calendar, nor did it record a balancing analysis.
Kates argued the denial violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice; the record showed a change in lead counsel due to deployment.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the denial was a structural error requiring a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the continuance denial a violation of the right to counsel of choice?	State: court balanced calendar,Stanfield prepared to proceed.	Kates: denial arbitrarily prevented him from hiring private counsel and violated the right to choice.	Yes; denial was reversible error, new trial required.
Did the court err by failing to articulate factors and consider defendant's finances in denying the continuance?	State: implicit balancing acceptable within calendar management.	Kates: court failed to conduct reasoned, fact-based analysis and to inquire about finances.	Yes; failure to articulate and assess factors warrants reversal and remand.
Is the circumstance of mid-trial counsel deployment a structural issue that invalidates the trial?	State: trial could proceed with standby counsel and schedule adaptations.	Kates: departure from chosen counsel mid-trial compromised fairness and choice.	Yes; the case should be retried with proper counsel of choice.

Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (right to counsel of choice is a structural error not subject to harmless error review)
Slappy v. Delaware, 465 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1983) (courts balance calendar control against right to counsel)
Hayes v. State, 205 N.J. 522 (N.J. 2011) (factors for continuance denial; require meaningful record)
State v. Ferguson, 198 N.J. Super. 395 (App.Div. 1985) (intense fact-sensitive balancing of continuance factors)
State v. McLaughlin, 310 N.J. Super. 242 (App.Div. 1998) (diligence and financial capacity relevant to continuance requests)
State v. Purnell, 161 N.J. 44 (N.J. 1999) (complete deprivation of counsel is a structural error)