Ulises Arroyo, Jr. v. State of Arkansas — Danielson, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent agrees that the circuit court applied the wrong test to the choice-of-counsel argument but would conclude that the record did not show an erroneous denial of a continuance or counsel of choice. It reasons that no formal or adequately supported request for substitution was made, the proposed new counsel conditioned his appearance on a continuance, and existing counsel was prepared for trial. The dissent also maintains that the circuit court was not required to create a more complete record on the appellant’s behalf.