Terry Collins was found guilty by a Glynn County jury of trafficking in cocaine.1 His motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals, asserting that his motion for continuance should have been granted and that he was denied his right to counsel.2 We disagree and affirm. During the pretrial phase, Collins was represented by three privately retained attorneys, one of whom was a Florida attorney admitted pro hac vice on Collins’s behalf. Ten days before trial, at the beginning of a motions hearing, Collins’s counsel announced that Collins had fired him and his co-counsel.3 The trial court warned all present that “this case is going forward,” and allowed counsel to question Collins regarding his decision. Collins acknowledged that he did not want the services of counsel, that he understood the motion to suppress and the trial would go forward as scheduled, that he was responsible for handling all preparation for trial, and that he would have to represent himself at the hearing on the motion to suppress if he wished to go forward with the motion. Asked if “you understand and accept all those risks and still wish this court to disengage our firm and Florida counsel from representing you at this time” Collins responded, “Yes.” At the trial court’s request, counsel also reviewed with Collins the potential penalties for the offense with which he was charged and that he would be representing himself unless he hired new counsel.
When the case was called for trial ten days later, neither Collins nor his co-defendant had obtained new counsel. The trial court reminded them that “you gentlemen told me that y’all were going to change attorneys and get someone else in here.” Collins’s co-defendant protested that he and Collins were unable to proceed with jury selection because “we’re laymen to the law.” The co-defendant added, “I feel I need an attorney that’s going to represent me so I can be treated fair.” In response to the trial court’s question, Collins stated, “The same, ma’am.” Collins acknowledged that he was told ten days earlier that the case would come up for trial as scheduled. The trial court then told him and his co-defendant once again that the case would proceed as scheduled, observing, when you make a change, it is your responsibility to get somebody else in here in this case, and that is immediately, because you made that change on the eve of this trial and knew at the time that you did it this case was scheduled to be tried this week. So the court is telling you that we’re going to proceed. We’re going to start this case on Wednesday. On Wednesday, the trial court offered to appoint “standby counsel” to assist both defendants, and both refused the offer. Collins’s co-defendant again requested a continuance, which was denied.
