A district judge appointed a lawyer named Brady to represent David Ely (defendant), an indigent defendant. Ely requested that a lawyer named Bartley be appointed instead, as Ely felt that he had a better relationship with Bartley. Neither Ely nor the state proffered any evidence related to the list of counsel available for appointment. Even though Bartley was available and willing to take Ely’s case, the judge refused to change the appointment, explaining that lawyers were appointed based on a rotation system in order to maintain organized and ordered counsel appointments and that, because Brady was a competent and experienced attorney, there was no reason to replace Brady with Bartley. Ely appealed his conviction to the court of appeals, arguing that his rights under the Sixth Amendment had been violated when the judge refused to allow Ely to choose his appointed counsel.