State v. Thompson
State v. Thompson, 2024 UT App 138 (per curiam)
Appellate Procedure
Defendant renewed his motion to substitute appellate counsel noting some disagreements with his recently filed appellate brief. The Utah Court of Appeals denied defendant’s motion, holding:
- Defendant had failed to show that his counsel was not qualified or not impartial, that there had been a complete breakdown in communication, or that the subjects over which defendant and counsel disagreed were something other than strategy.
- Practice tip: Disagreements about which issues to raise on appeal and how to brief them do not constitute “good cause” for substitution of appellate counsel.