State v. Reilly

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

State v. Reilly

645 A.2d 494, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 227, 1994 WL 397641

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJuly 15, 1994

DocketNo. 94-428—M.P.

StatusPublished

This text of 645 A.2d 494 (State v. Reilly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Reilly, 645 A.2d 494, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 227, 1994 WL 397641 (R.I. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter came before the court on the defendant’s motion asking that the Public Defender, his counsel of record in a pending Superior Court criminal case, be released. According to information supplied by the Public Defender, Richard Casparian, Mr. Casparian has conferred with defendant on at least eight occasions in this matter, he has supplied defendant with copies of all discovery received in the case, and he has taken other specified steps to prepare the defendant’s case for trial. The information available indicates that the Public Defender has represented defendant quite effectively. While defendant is free to discharge the Public Defender and thereafter represent himself in this criminal matter, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), he is not entitled to have private counsel appointed to represent him. The choice therefore of continuing with the Public Defender or of proceeding on his own remains with the defendant.

The motion to release counsel is denied pro forma.

MURRAY, J., did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This matter came before the court on the defendant’s motion asking that the Public Defender, his counsel of record in a pending Superior Court criminal case, be released. According to information supplied by the Public Defender, Richard Casparian, Mr. Casparian has conferred with defendant on at least eight occasions in this matter, he has supplied defendant with copies of all discovery received in the case, and he has taken other specified steps to prepare the defendant’s case for trial. The information available indicates that the Public Defender has represented defendant quite effectively. While defendant is free to discharge the Public Defender and thereafter represent himself in this criminal matter, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), he is not entitled to have private counsel appointed to represent him. The choice therefore of continuing with the Public Defender or of proceeding on his own remains with the defendant.

The motion to release counsel is denied pro forma.

MURRAY, J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 A.2d 494, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 227, 1994 WL 397641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-reilly-ri-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack