# State v. Clark

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · October 12, 2006 · 722 N.W.2d 460

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9883698

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Clay Carl CLARK, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** October 12, 2006
- **Citations:** 722 N.W.2d 460; 2006 Minn. LEXIS 707; 2006 WL 2884169
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Meyer
- **Judges:** Page
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9883698

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a request for substitute counsel where the appointed counsel obtained favorable pretrial rulings and the district court was satisfied that the attorney was prepared for trial
- stating that an indigent defendant does not have a right to representation by a particular lawyer
- holding that the Minnesota Constitution does not guarantee advisory counsel for pro se defendants
- holding that serious allegations prompt the need for “searching inquiry” by the district court

## Opinion text

MEYER, Justice
(concurring).
I write separately because I do not agree with the majority that Clark did not raise substantial complaints about the effectiveness of the representation provided by appointed counsel. I agree with the dissent of Justice Hanson that “Clark’s claims that counsel had not visited him in jail, had not discussed the case with him, would not seek out suggested witnesses, and would not have the gun checked for fingerprints, raised serious questions that required inquiry.” These claims amounted to “exceptional circumstances” such that the trial court should have conducted a more “searching inquiry” before ruling on the request. The court apparently did not make that inquiry because it was under the mistaken belief that the rules precluded appointment of a different public defender. I believe that the lack of inquiry precludes a finding that Clark’s waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was voluntarily made.
Nevertheless, because I conclude that Clark’s request for substitute counsel was untimely under the Worthy decision, the denial of his request was not an abuse of discretion. State v. Worthy, 583 N.W.2d 270, 278-79 (Minn.1998).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9883698. Public record. Not legal advice.