The opinion
BLISS, Judge
(specially concurs) :
I find not the slightest merit in defendant’s first proposition that the trial court *697 erred in not granting defendant a continuance of the trial. On Tuesday, March 19, 1974, defendant, with his original court-appointed attorney, appeared before Associate District Judge Lynn Burris and entered a plea of guilty to the crime charged in the Information, Burglary in the Second Degree, and at defendant’s request pronouncement of Judgment and Sentence was passed to the next day, Wednesday, March 20, 1974, at 11:00 a. m. At the appointed time, the defendant and his said attorney appeared before the court, but asked to withdraw the plea of guilty, which the court permitted, entered a plea of not guilty and requested jury trial. The court then advised the defendant and his attorney as follows: “There will be a jury here at nine o’clock in the morning so have the defendant here and all of the witnesses so we can proceed to trial at that time. Mr. Yeargain, you need to be here at nine in the morning.” To which the defendant answered, “I’ll be here at eight.” It appears that a jury term had been in progress and that this case was at the end or near the end of the term.
The record reflects the defendant then caused subpoenas to be issued to and served by the undersheriff for his witnesses to appear for trial, the next day, Thursday, March 21, 1974, at 9:00 a. m.
Immediately before the trial was to commence, as agreeably assigned, the defendant was present and permitted his said attorney to renew and present Motion to Suppress, heard as a Motion in Limine, which was overruled. The defendant, speaking for himself, then stated to the court, “I would like to make a motion for the trial to be postponed for me so that I could have equal time to get another attorney on the basis of conspiring with a witness against my defense . . . See, he went and talked to one of the people who is going to testify against me.” There was no complaint that defendant was not ready for trial.
Although the record does not indicate the slightest impropriety by the court-appointed attorney, whom the defendant had seen questioning the prosecuting witness concerning certain aspects of the case, an absolute right of a defense lawyer, the trial judge in an apparent effort to appease the defendant, granted his request by appointing two other local attorneys to represent him, the originally court-appointed attorney voluntarily extending his help and services to his two successors in every way possible and was available to them throughout the trial. In effect, defendant had three court-appointed attorneys. This was at 10:00 a. m. and the trial court announced the trial would commence at 1:00 that afternoon and it did. The State used two of its witnesses in chief and during the testimony of the third witness, the court recessed until 9:00 a. m. the next day, Friday, March 22, 1974 when the trial was concluded. Every witness in the case, both for the State and the defense, lived at Tahlequah and all were available to the court-appointed defense lawyers during the overnight recess. There was no surprise State witness or witnesses. All witnesses called by the State in chief and rebuttal had testified in the preliminary examination and their testimony recorded by a court reporter and the tapes heard by the said lawyers and the court reporter was available to them at all times. During the trial, no occasion arose to attempt to impeach a State’s witness on his testimony at the preliminary examination.
There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge. The defendant had a fair and impartial trial for which he was fully prepared and adequately and completely represented. The record in the case is such that the trial court could easily have determined, and no doubt did, that the defendant’s request for the appointment of a different attorney was made in bad faith for only one purpose, the ultimate purpose to gain a continunace and delay of the trial of his case, possibly beyond the term. He was totally unwarranted in making his self-serving, false accusation against his first court-appointed attorney, a trustworthy, capable and competent attor *698 ney, who was fully prepared for trial at the appointed time agreed upon by the defendant -himself.
Lack of time for preparation for trial, as asserted by defendant, did not cause the defendant’s conviction. He was convicted because the evidence in the case shows overwhelmingly his guilt. Not content with having committed the burglary charged and caching the valuable property taken, he returned to commit a second burglary the same night within a few hundred feet of the first and was caught red-handed by he police officers while in the act of trying to commit the second burglary and had on his person a quantity of coins, nickels, dimes, pennies and quarters and one roll of pennies and a silver dollar, engraved with the initials of the first victim, “J. P-”, all taken during the burglary committed about an hour earlier. There could be no other verdict by the jury but guilty.
As to the proposition of asserted error arising from the search of the cabin in which the guns and pistols were found and seized, the defendant had, and has, no standing to question the search and seizure and the trial court did not commit error in overruling defendant’s Motion to Suppress the evidence.
Assuming, however, the search and seizure invalid, the trial transcript shows the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without the introduction and benefit of the seized guns and pistols obtained by search of the cabin. The Supreme Court of Delaware 3 has stated the appropriate rule substantially as follows: Admission into evidence of item seized pursuant to invalid search was harmless error beyond reasonable doubt where evidence, exclusive of item seized, was sufficient to sustain conviction. Error in admission of evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment may be treated as harmless error under beyond-a-reasonable-doubt test and automatic reversal need not follow admission of illegally seized evidence if test is met. The Court cited in its opinion Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969), and Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970).
The instant case meets the test without the slightest difficulty, and there is no merit in this proposition.
Accordingly, I concur.
. Day v. State, 291 A.2d 286 (Del.1972).