Stern v. County Court Ex Rel. County of Grand
773 P.2d 1074 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney appointed to represent an indigent criminal defendant cannot withdraw simply by asserting their own incompetence; they bear the burden of proving that incompetence to the court. A claim of prospective ineffective assistance of counsel is premature and cannot be used as a basis to avoid such an appointment.
Facts:
- Ronald S. Stern was an attorney licensed in Colorado since 1974 whose practice was primarily in civil litigation.
- Stern practiced in Grand County, a rural area with a small population and only two or three attorneys who regularly practiced criminal law.
- Stern had not voluntarily represented a criminal defendant for eleven years and stated he had not read any materials related to criminal law or procedure in that time.
- In December 1986, the County Court appointed Stern to represent an indigent defendant charged with a felony and two misdemeanors.
- The appointment was necessary because the Colorado Public Defender was unable to represent the defendant due to a conflict of interest.
Procedural Posture:
- Stern filed a motion to withdraw from his appointment in the County Court in and for the County of Grand.
- The County Court denied Stern's motion.
- Stern then commenced an action in district court seeking an order requiring the county court to grant his motion to withdraw.
- The district court dismissed Stern's complaint.
- Stern, as appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the court of appeals.
- The Colorado Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction after the county court requested the case be certified directly to it.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to allow an attorney with limited criminal law experience to withdraw from a mandatory appointment to represent an indigent criminal defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Rovira, J.
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by appointing an attorney with limited criminal experience, as attorneys, as officers of the court, have a professional obligation to accept such appointments. An attorney's assertion of their own incompetence is insufficient to justify withdrawal; they have the burden of proving incompetence to the court, which Stern failed to do. Furthermore, a claim that the appointment will lead to ineffective assistance of counsel is premature because such a claim can only be assessed after representation has occurred by pointing to specific errors and resulting prejudice, as established in Strickland v. Washington.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the inherent power of courts to appoint private counsel for indigent defendants, particularly in rural jurisdictions with a limited number of criminal law practitioners. It establishes that an attorney's self-assessment of incompetence is not controlling; instead, incompetence is a factual issue to be proven to the appointing court. The ruling also clarifies that the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel is a protection for the defendant to be asserted retrospectively, not a tool for an attorney to prospectively avoid an appointment, thus placing a significant professional burden on general practitioners to become competent when called upon to serve.
Unlock the full brief for Stern v. County Court Ex Rel. County of Grand