In State V

In State v. Miller , the court held that

A) the trial judge's denial of the requested adjournment was not an abuse of his broad discretion and did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to effective representation.
B) Miller's right to be represented entailed the right to a public defender of his choice.
C) Miller's conviction should be reversed because the trial judge failed to accommodate a reasonable request for a brief delay so as to permit Miller an opportunity to confer with newly assigned counsel.
D) this was a rare case in which the doctrine of fundamental fairness mandated reversal of the defendant's conviction.