State v. Olson

Substitution of counsel is required when there is a "'legitimate complaint concerning [appointed counsel]' that might rise to the level of requiring substitution." State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 257, 839 P2d 692 (1992), adh’d to on recons, 318 Or 28, 861 P2d 1012 (1993).

Defendant appealed a conviction for one count of third-degree robbery under ORS 164.395. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his request for substitution of counsel. On appeal, Defendant argued he should have been granted his request for substitution of counsel and the trial court erred in not doing so because the trial court did not make a record showing that it “sufficiently ‘heard and considered’ [D]efendant’s argument at trial. In response, the State argued the trial court was acting within its discretion in both deciding not to further inquire as to whether Defendant’s arguments were sufficiently reviewed and in denying Defendant’s request. Substitution of counsel is required when there is a "'legitimate complaint concerning [appointed counsel]' that might rise to the level of requiring substitution." State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 257, 839 P2d 692 (1992), adh’d to on recons, 318 Or 28, 861 P2d 1012 (1993). The Court concluded Defendant's complaints did not rise to the level of "legitimacy," which would have required the Court to grant Defendant's request, because Defendant's complaints did not directly relate to Defendant's counsel's ability to provide adequate counsel.

Affirmed.