Opinion
ID No. 1006004645.
Date: November 1, 2010.
Upon Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Current Counsel And For Court To Appoint New Counsel — DENIED .
ORDER
1. On August 16, 2010, Defendant was indicted for Strangulation, 11 Del.C. § 607, and related misdemeanors.
2. Defendant was arraigned on September 7, 2010 and Kevin O'Connell, Esquire, entered his appearance on Defendant's behalf. First case review was held on October 4, 2010. Final case review is set for November 22, 2010, and trial is December 2, 2010.
3. Meanwhile, on October 26, 2010 Defendant, on his own behalf, filed a "Motion to Dismiss Current Counsel And For Court to Appoint New Counsel." The court has reviewed the motion and it appears to be without merit.
4. For the most part, the motion is conclusory. It speaks in general terms about Defendant's rights. But as to its specific factual allegations, the motions falls on top of itself. For example, Defendant claims that, "Counsel for the Defendant should confer with its client without delay, and as often as necessary. . . ." The motion, however, includes a letter from counsel dated July 1, 2010. The motion and docket show Defendant and his lawyer were in the courthouse together for the arraignment and for first case review, at least. They will meet again this month, at least.
5. Defendant also complains about his bail. The record reveals, however, that Defendant's current bail was set after the State filed a motion to increase it and the motion was heard. Thus, Defendant received due process concerning that. Moreover, while the bail was increased, it does not approach the level requested by the State. Accordingly, it can be said that current counsel was effective to a considerable extent on that issue.
6. Defendant also seems to complain that a condition of his release is that he be held at Level 4. While it is strict, Level 4 is not the same as prison, and taking Defendant's extensive, violent history and the affidavit of probable cause into account, it would have been reasonable for the bail to have been set in the higher amount requested by the State, which would likely have precluded Defendant's release before trial. If Defendant's bail and conditions of release are to be faulted, it is for being too lenient.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's October 26, 2010 Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.