REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

NO. 139 OF 1998

                                                BETWEEN

JASON GARCIA                                                                     APPELLANT

v

THE STATE                                                                          RESPONDENT

PANEL:

M.A. de la Bastide, C.J

L. Jones, J.A

A. Lucky, J.A

APPEARANCES:

MR. I. BROOKS appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT

MR. R. DOLSINGH and MR. RAMREKERSINGH appeared on behalf of the RESPONDENT

DATE DELIVERED:

Monday 2^nd July, 2001.

JUDGMENT

Delivered by M.A. de la Bastide, C.J

There is no merit whatever in this application for leave to appeal.  The lawyer appointed by the Legal Aid to represent the

applicant has examined the summing-up carefully and has been unable to find any ground of appeal that is arguable.

The Court has also looked at the summing-up and there is no obvious fault to be found with it.  The applicant was before the court on the 24^th of April this year when he sought and obtained an adjournment in order that counsel might be assigned to him by the Legal Aid Authority.

Mr. Brooks was retained by the Legal Aid Authority on behalf of the applicant but, apparently, the applicant has indicated to Mr. Brooks that he doesn’t want him to represent him.  When Mr. Brooks visited him, the applicant was uncooperative.  The applicant now having appeared before us in person, indicates that he would like another adjournment so that he can have another lawyer assigned to him by the Legal Aid Authority.

He has also sought to impress on us that there were inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses when compared with the statements and depositions previously given by them.  He has, however, disclosed that these statements and depositions were in the possession of the attorney who represented him in the court below.

An applicant for legal aid is not entitled to have the attorney of his choice nor is he entitled to reject the attorney who is assigned to him on whimsical grounds.  The applicant is not attempting to offer any substantial reason why he does not have confidence in Mr. Brooks.  In these circumstances, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

I would mention that this is almost certainly doing the applicant a favour, as the appeal is lacking in merit, or so it appears to both Mr. Brooks and ourselves.  The only result of adjourning this matter further would be to extend the time which the applicant spends in prison, as the sentence will only start to run from the determination of his application for leave to appeal.

The convictions and sentences are affirmed and the sentences will start to run from today.