State v. Oliver, 106 N.E.3d 300

Defendant Charles Oliver was indicted on kidnapping (first-degree) and felonious assault (second-degree) charges, each with a three-year firearm specification; tried in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Original retained counsel withdrew in January 2017 after an allegation that he paid the victim; the court appointed Robert Krapenc as new counsel.
On the scheduled trial date (February 13, 2017), Oliver requested a continuance to hire his own attorney; the request was made the day of trial and he had not contacted any replacement counsel.
The trial court denied the continuance, expressing concern the request was dilatory and intended to delay trial until the victim (then jailed) might become unavailable.
Krapenc told the court he had reviewed discovery and was prepared; the trial proceeded, the jury convicted Oliver, and he was sentenced to 12 years.
On appeal Oliver argued the denial of his continuance violated his right to retained counsel of choice; the appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Oliver)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a day-of-trial continuance to allow defendant to retain private counsel of choice	Denial was proper because the request was made on the day of trial, appeared dilatory, and would unfairly inconvenience the court and witnesses	Defendant had a right to counsel of choice and his appointed counsel had been with him less than a month and was allegedly unprepared; trial court did not adequately inquire	Court held no abuse of discretion: request was untimely, appeared to be a delay tactic, counsel stated he was prepared, and court made adequate inquiry

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (recognizes the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, but not absolute)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (trial courts have broad discretion to manage trial proceedings, including denying continuances)
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (decisions on substitution of counsel lie within trial court discretion)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) (no mechanical test for continuance denials; must assess circumstances and reasons presented to the trial judge)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (sets Ohio factors for reviewing continuance denials: length of delay, prior continuances, inconvenience, legitimacy of reasons, defendant contribution, and other relevant factors)