dissenting:
The lubricant that keeps the overburdened machinery of the trial court functioning as smoothly as it does is the broad discretion which historically has been vested in the trial judge in many areas of the law. In this case, the majority grievously erodes that discretion, as it finds reversible error in the handling of a pretrial request by a *1246defense counsel which not only was carefully considered by the trial judge, but which moreover was freely and unequivocally withdrawn by counsel. I respectfully dissent.
I
The manner in which the subject matter of the majority opinion came before this court warrants explanation. We appointed an attorney who had not been trial counsel to represent appellant. He dutifully pursued the direct appeal, and also sought a new trial. His motion for a new trial was denied; a second appeal was taken from that ruling and was consolidated with the direct appeal.
A 43-page brief was filed on behalf of appellant. It was both thorough and well-prepared. Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial was claimed; certain evidentiary rulings and other actions of the trial court were challenged; and it was argued that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to (sustain the first-degree murder conviction. No reference was made to the pretrial request for co-counsel which had been made and withdrawn. The government filed a 36-page brief; appellant filed a 20-page reply brief. Still no reference was made to the issue now deemed to be controlling.
The case was set for oral argument on April 6,1978. On the morning of the scheduled argument, pursuant to a decision with respect to which I played no active part, the court sua sponte postponed argument and asked for supplemental briefs on court-specified issues related to the pretrial request for co-counsel. Thereafter, supplemental briefs were filed directed to the issues thus raised by the court. With the exception of the finding made by the majority in footnote 2 of its opinion to the effect that the “challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence” is rejected, the opinion deals exclusively with the pretrial proceedings.
Nothing could be more axiomatic than the concept that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside on appeal in the absence of reversible error. That proposition is so fundamental that it needs no support. I would, however, quote three noted legal scholars with whom I am in agreement:
The central purpose of a criminal appeal is to ensure that the trial court decision was reached fairly and accurately. The lack of precise uniformity in doctrinal application, though not unimportant, is relatively of less concern. The appellate court’s mission is to provide assurance that the defendant was convicted and sentenced on adequate evidence and without prejudicial error at trial or in the preliminary proceedings. In short, the chief function of a criminal appeal is to see that the appellant was not done an injustice.[1]
Assuredly there was no prejudicial error in the preliminary proceedings; assuredly no injustice was done to appellant. The majority opinion is a house of cards which collapses under even cursory analysis; it is both unprecedented and unsupported by any relevant authority.2
II
A substantial portion of the majority opinion is occupied by excerpts from the *1247two pretrial hearings at which defense counsel’s request that the trial court “appoint another counsel to assist” was first made and later withdrawn. I invite review of the totality of the discussions on the subject. The transcript demonstrates beyond question that defense counsel repeatedly expressed his belief in his competence to try the case, and at no point did the defendant reflect any dissatisfaction with his attorney.3 In context, it is seen that defense counsel was confident of his ability to handle the trial, but, in recognition of the mandatory sentence for a first-degree murder conviction, wished to be able to consult with a more senior attorney, in part to aid in evaluating the desirability of plea bargaining.
At a status hearing on September 21, 1976 (one week after the request was made), defense counsel withdrew his request for the appointment of co-counsel. While the statement which he then made is included in the majority opinion, I quote it again, for it illustrates both his belief in his competence to try the case and the fact that he had achieved what had been his overriding goal, i. e., the opportunity to share his preparation for trial with other counsel:
I would like to advise the court that I have spoken at length with my client today, and we have decided to proceed with me as counsel in this case.
If the Court would like to bring him in to verify this, I can represent as an officer of the Court that he is satisfied.
I have spoken to other counsel — the Court may recall my question of competence and experience, that we spoke of this at length at the bench; and I am satisfied at this point that the experience that I have is adequate to deal with this case at trial.
Thus, the request was withdrawn, removing the need for the trial court to rule upon it. The trial proceeded, with essentially the sole issue being one of credibility. The jury’s choice was between believing appellant and his wife — who contended that the deceased reached for his gun — or the neutral witnesses who testified that the deceased made no such attempt, and moreover was seeking to escape when he was shot.
Ill
I stated earlier my belief that: “The majority opinion is a house of cards which collapses under even cursory analysis . .” Ante, at 1246. Actually, there are only three cards, and they should be examined more than cursorily. The first is an out-of-context quotation from the Supreme Court’s opinion in McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); the second and third are opinions of this court, written by the author of the majority opinion in this case, which are grounded upon that quotation. Farrell v. United States, D.C.App., 391 A.2d 755 (1978); Monroe v. United States, D.C.App., 389 A.2d 811 (1978).
The relevant quotation from the McMann v. Richardson decision is: “within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” 397 U.S. at 771, 90 S.Ct. at 1449. It has no significance in and of itself. McMann was a case in which the defendant entered a guilty plea, in part because he had confessed. Later, habeas corpus relief was sought, it being contended that the confession was inadmissible and hence that *1248the guilty plea had not been intelligently made. The Supreme Court’s holding in the case was direct:
We hold, therefore, that a defendant who alleges that he pleaded guilty because of a prior coerced confession is not, without more, entitled to a hearing on his petition for habeas corpus. [Ibid.]
I consider it to be indisputable that the McMann Court did not adopt any standard of competence for attorneys.4 Within the context of its holding, the Court made the following comments which included the subject quotation (which is italicized for easy recognition):
In our view a defendant’s plea of guilty based on reasonably competent advice is an intelligent plea not open to attack on the ground that counsel may have misjudged the admissibility of the defendant’s confession. Whether a plea of guilty is unintelligent and therefore vulnerable when motivated by a confession erroneously thought admissible in evidence depends as an initial matter, not on whether a court would retrospectively consider counsel’s advice to be right or wrong, but on whether the advice was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases. On the one hand, uncertainty is inherent in predicting court decisions; but on the other hand defendants facing felony charges are entitled to the effective assistance of competent counsel. [Id., at 770-71, 90 S.Ct. at 1448-1449 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).]
Having said that, the McMann Court went on to make the following observations with which I am in full accord, and the sense of which underlies this dissent:
Beyond this we think the matter, for the most part, should be left to the good sense and discretion of the trial courts with the admonition that if the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution is to serve its purpose, defendants cannot be left to the mercies of incompetent counsel, and that judges should strive to maintain proper standards of performance by attorneys who are representing defendants in criminal cases in their courts. [Id., at 771, 90 S.Ct. at 1449.]
I find nothing inconsistent with those objectives in the trial court conduct of which the Monroe and Farrell divisions of this court were critical. By the same token, I agree with the underlying premise of both Monroe and Farrell, i. e., if a defendant makes a pretrial complaint which properly is interpreted to raise a question as to the effectiveness of his counsel, that question should be considered carefully by the trial judge.5 In any event, this case is not analogous to Monroe or Farrell. In each of those cases, we dealt with a specific pretrial claim by the defendant that counsel was devoting insufficient attention to the case — a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Here we have only a request by counsel, made as he expressed his confidence in his own ability to try the case, that co-counsel be appointed. The request was withdrawn a week later, obviously after considerable thought. In my view, there is no support in *1249Monroe or Farrell (or any other authority) for a ruling that the trial judge’s response to that request — both before and at the time of its withdrawal — was in any sense erroneous, much less constituting a basis for reversal.
IV
My conceptual differences with my colleagues as to the disposition of this case are so basic that an expression of disagreement with specific portions of the majority opinion seems almost superfluous. Nonetheless, I briefly would direct attention to a few aspects of the majority’s treatment of the issues which strike me as flawed.
(1) In footnote 4 of its opinion, .the majority cites and relies upon the disciplinary rule that cautions an attorney not to accept the representation of a client in a matter which he is not competent to handle. Such reliance is misplaced. The record makes it clear that defense counsel repeatedly expressed confidence in his ability to handle the case; he simply expressed a wish— again, later withdrawn — to have the benefit of someone with greater experience as co-counsel “to assist.”
(2) The majority takes the position that a more extensive inquiry by the trial judge was necessary “because the record is devoid of the defendant’s views concerning his attorney’s claim of inexperience. The defendant did not bring his own complaint before the court either personally or through counsel.” Ante, at 1244. The fact is that the defendant never indicated any dissatisfaction with his attorney; he had no complaint. I have commented in footnote 3, supra, on the defendant’s opportunity to complain had he wished to do so during the aborted guilty plea hearing. Additionally, it may be recalled that appellant had been held in preventive detention pending trial under D.C.Code 1973, § 23-1322. Subsection (d) of that statute requires trial within 60 days for a defendant who is so detained. The request for co-counsel took the trial date past the 60-day period, and appellant accordingly testified to his voluntary waiver of that provision. Thus, he was on the stand at the September 14 status hearing but he expressed no dissatisfaction with his attorney. Unlike the defendants in Monroe, supra, and Farrell, supra, who spoke up on their own initiative in challenge to their attorneys prior to trial, appellant expressed no concern at all as to his attorney. The situation did not oblige the court to go further than it did and to initiate a probe as to whether appellant affirmatively was or was not “satisfied” with his lawyer.
(3) The majority states as a factual predicate to a portion of its discussion that “trial counsel announced his inability to handle the proceedings unassisted.” Ante, at 1245. To me, the totality of the record makes it clear that the majority’s statement is factually incorrect.
(4) After setting forth what I consider to be the inaccurate proposition just quoted, the majority states: “The court was then under a duty to make an inquiry of the defendant as well as his counsel to determine whether an additional or a substitute counsel should be appointed.” Ante, at 1245. I ask: Why? (No authority is cited to support the majority’s statement.) I reiterate that no complaint ever was made by the defendant; the only concern expressed — and it was quite limited — was by counsel. To be sure, there are times when a defendant should be heard from personally, as in a guilty plea hearing under Super.Ct. Cr.R. 11 or when a defendant elects to •waive his right to counsel. However, counsel normally are deemed to speak for their clients, and when, as here, an attorney makes an affirmative representation as an officer of the court, he is entitled to belief. I would encourage the type of candor reflected by this record, and consider it to be untenable for the majority to decree that henceforth a defendant must be brought into the kind of discussion that occurred here.
(5) The majority next states that: “The court failed to ask any questions of defense counsel to elucidate what background and experience he had with first-degree murder cases, as well as the direction of his anticipated defense.” Ante, at 1245. There are *1250three responses to that sentence. First, I do not believe the trial court “failed” in any aspect of its handling of the unusual problem which arose in this case. Second, there can be no meaningful relevance to an attorney’s experience with first-degree murder cases, unless the majority intends to take the position that only lawyers who have tried first-degree murder cases are fit to try first-degree murder cases. Third, I see no proper basis for our directing the trial judge to press for an explanation of defense counsel’s “anticipated defense.” To give such information to the judge is, of course, simultaneously to give it to the prosecutor, and such a revelation in many cases would disserve a defendant’s interests.6
(6) Immediately after the sentence which I have discussed in the preceding paragraph, the majority states:
The court instead stated its belief that counsel “would be more than competent and qualified and able to go forward insofar as the preparation and presentation of the defendant’s defense in this matter.” There having been no inquiry, there were no facts of record to support this statement. [Ante, at 1245.]
To be sure, the court did not inquire into defense counsel’s experience in first-degree murder cases, nor, in my view, should it have. The quoted comment by the trial judge, however, must be considered in its context. The record reflects that the trial court quite properly requested a proffer from the government as to what its evidence would show. The prosecutor then gave what the evidence later proved to be an accurate capsulization of the government’s proof. Ante, at 1239. The court then asked defense counsel if he “previously [had] been acquainted with this version of the facts as alleged by the Government at this time?” Ibid. On being assured by defense counsel that he was aware of such facts, then — and only then — did the trial court express the conclusion quoted immediately above. From the government’s proffer, the experienced trial judge readily could recognize that the case was not complex; illustratively, there was no constitutional issue, no insanity issue, and no identification issue. There was no real issue except one of credibility as to appellant’s self-defense contention. Thus, in my opinion, the trial judge assuredly did make an appropriate inquiry, and his conclusion based on the responses thereto was supported by the record.
(7) The majority appears to be influenced by the following circumstance which it notes: “At the status hearing of September 21, when counsel withdrew his request for additional counsel, the defendant was not even present in court.” Ante, at 1245. A status hearing, of course, is not part of a trial, and a defendant has no presumptive right to be present at any or all of such hearings. Again, trial judges must have meaningful discretion as to when and how to handle certain pretrial matters.
V
I have expressed my belief that no error was committed by the trial judge with respect to defense counsel’s request — later withdrawn — for the appointment of co-counsel. My colleagues, of course, not only find error, but find reversible error. Unstated by the majority, however (beyond its general expressions of concern as to Sixth Amendment rights), is any specifically defined way in which the supposed error adversely affected the substantial rights of appellant. This court is bound by the fact that the District of Columbia Code includes what is essentially a codification of the harmless error rule. Section ll-721(e) of the Code provides:
On the hearing of any appeal in any case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
*1251Reduced to its essence, what the majority is doing in this ease is reversing a presumptively valid conviction because it apparently believes that the trial judge should have handled the request for co-counsel somewhat differently — and new discretion-inhibiting pronouncements are made in the process. The conviction is set aside and a new trial must be held, notwithstanding all of the following factors: (1) the trial judge’s manifestly careful consideration of the request; (2) defense counsel’s assertion of his competence to try the case (which, notwithstanding the severity of the potential sentence, was not complex); (3) defense counsel’s carefully considered and confident withdrawal of his request and his assertion of his client’s satisfaction with that decision; and (4) the absence of any expression by the defendant of even the slightest dissatisfaction with his attorney. My analysis of the case leads me to conclude that the majority’s ruling is unsupported either by reason or by any relevant authority.
. Carrington, Meador, and Rosenberg, Justice on Appeal 58 (1976).
. The majority opinion does, of course, include a number of citations. Few have direct relevance; many run afoul of the wise counsel succinctly expressed by the late Judge Pretty-man:
Never rely upon a quoted extract from an opinion, unless it accurately sums up the decision upon the point. Sentences out of context rarely mean what they seem to say Prettyman, Some Observations Concerning Appellate Advocacy, 39 Va.L.Rev. 285, 295 (1953). Illustratively, see the edited quotation on p. 1242 of the majority opinion from the Supreme Court’s decision in Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. 854 (1930). As even the portion of that sentence which has been deleted by the majority makes clear (see id., at 312-13, 50 S.Ct. 253), that opinion dealt exclusively with the right to a trial by jury; it provides no support for the majority’s disposition of this proceeding.
. The case was called for trial on November 2, 1976. That morning, appellant was prepared to, and did, take the initial steps towards tendering a plea of guilty to second-degree murder. The trial court commenced the type of colloquy called for by Super.Ct.Cr.R. 11, and advised appellant fully as to his rights. After appellant then formally expressed his desire to plead guilty, the following question and answer occurred:
THE COURT: And in arriving at that decision, Mr. Pierce, you have had the benefit of advice and counsel of your attorney in this matter, and also the benefit and advice and counsel of your mother and other members of your family. Is that right, sir?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
Very shortly thereafter, appellant changed his mind and decided he wanted a trial, which began that afternoon. The point, however, is that not only did appellant never express any dissatisfaction with his counsel, but moreover he certainly did not lack any opportunity to do so had he been so disposed.
. Thus I confess to bewilderment at the following statement which was made in Monroe v. United States, supra:
We therefore adopt the McMann v. Richardson standard of performance — i. e., that effective representation by counsel is that which is “within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases,” id., 397 U.S. at 771, 90 S.Ct. at 1449 — as the proper criterion by which pretrial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to be measured. [389 A.2d at 819 (footnote omitted).]
. I shall not comment at length on the Monroe and Farrell opinions. However, I find them to be somewhat inconsistent and inherently self-contradictory, and I suspect they will give rise to pretrial abuses by defendants and prove difficult of application by trial judges.
I believe Monroe’s statement that “the trial court must make appropriate factual findings ” was unnecessary and ill-advised. 389 A.2d at 820. This is not one of those exceptional areas in which findings are required by rule, and an appropriate inquiry followed by a general conclusion should be adequate. Cf. Brooks v. United States, D.C.App., 367 A.2d 1297, 1304 (1976), and cases there cited. This is particularly true in a high-volume trial court such as the Superior Court, in which the judges readily become knowledgeable as to the abilities of the attorneys who practice before them regularly.
. This basically is the reasoning behind the proposition that defense counsel is free to waive an opening statement.