Cited by

We agree that it would be “an incorrect statement of the law to say that a criminal defendant may not have a different public defender under any circumstances.” (emphasis added), aff’ d

Reappointment of Counsel A defendant who waives counsel “does not have an absolute right to relinquish the right of self-representation.” .

d 460, 464 (Minn. 2006).

d 270, 278-79 (Minn. 1998) ; see also State v. Clark , (holding that the defendant ’s request for substitute counsel was untimely when the request was made the morning that trial was to begin, after jury selection had begun, and when the defendant had made a speedy -trial demand) .

A defendant’s reque st for substitute counsel must be granted only if “exceptional circum stances exist and the demand is timely and reasonably made.” (quotations omitted).

See State v. Clark , -68 (Minn. 2006) (recognizing discretion is afforded to the district court).

State v. Clark , see also State v. Jones , (explainin g the role of advisory counsel).

While the Minnesota Constitution provides that defendants have a right to the assistance of defense counsel, see Minn. Const. art. I, § 6, the Minnesota Supreme Court has “decline[d] to read the Minnesota Constitution as 4 guaranteeing advisory counsel for pro se defendants[,]”

If a defendant expresses “serious allegations” about an appointed attorney’s ability or competence, “the district court s hould conduct a 5 ‘searching inquiry ’ before determining whether the defendant ’s complaints warra nt the appointment of substitute counsel.” Munt, d at 586 (quoting State v. Clark , ).

(concluding the defendant’s request for substitute counsel was untimel y when the defendant made the request after jury selection and a speedy trial demand); State v. Reed , (concluding that the defe ndant’s request for substitute c ounsel a week before trial

d 440, 449 (Minn. 2001) .

“The decision to grant or deny a request for substitute counsel lies within the [district] court’s discretion.” State v. Clark

If a defendant voices “serious allegations” regarding counsel’s ability or competence, “the district court should conduct a ‘searching inquiry’ before determining whether the defendant’s complaints warrant the appointment of substitute counsel.” Munt, d 4 at 586 ().

“The decision to grant or deny a request for substitute counsel lies within the [district] court’s discretion.” ().

(subjecting a district court’s decision regarding whether it may appoint advisory counsel to an abuse-of-discretion standard of review).

See Ferguson, d at 816 ; (holding that the Minnesota Constitution does not guarantee advisory counsel for pro se defendants).

l not lightly reject a Supreme Court interpretation of identical or substantially similar language” and “will not cavalierly construe our constitution more expansively than the United States Supreme Court has construed the federal constitution” and has declined to extend the right to counsel under the Minnesota Constitution to “guaranteeing advisory counsel for pro se defendants.” (quotations omitted).