People v. Fuller

Opinion

F E LED SUPERIOR @ouT OFGUAM 1 2022 HER -8 PH 14: us 2 CLER JRT 3 BYI 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

7 Plaintiff, Case No. CF0171-21

8 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 9 THANO JAMES FULLER (Motion For Appointment of Counsel) (aka Dhano Fuller, aka Dhano James Fuller), 10

11 Defendant.

13 INTRODUCTION 14 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on February 18, 2022, for 15 a motion hearing on Thano James Fuller's ("Defendant") Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 16 Attorney William Pole appeared for Defendant. Assistant Attorney General Katherine Newton 17 appeared for the People of Guam ("People"). In accordance with its ruling from the bench on 18 February 18, 2022, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order D E N Y I N G 19

20 Defendant's Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

21 BACKGROUND

22 On April 9, 2020, a grand jury indicted Defendant with the following charges: (1) 23 Burglary (As a Second Degree Felony), (2) Two Counts of Theft (As a Second Degree 24 Felony), (3) Conspiracy to Commit Burglary (As a Second Degree Felony), and (4) Conspiracy 25 to Commit Theft (As a Second Degree Felony). Indictment, Apr. 9, 2020. Initially, Attorney 26 Joaquin Angola from the Private Attorney Panel was appointed to represent Defendant. Notice 27

Page l o f t 1 . of Court Appointed Counsel, Apr. 1, 2021. Subsequently, Attorney William Pole from the

2 Private Attorney Panel was appointed to represent Defendant. Notice of Court Appointed 3 Counsel, Apr. 14, 2021. Attorney WiI1iamPole has represented Defendant until the present. 4 On January 26, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion. Mot. for Appointment of Counsel, 5 Jan. 26, 2022. The Court held a motion hearing and made a ruling denying Defendant's 6 7 Motion for Appointment at" Counsel firm the bench. Minute Entry, Feb. 18, 2022.

8 DISCUSSION

9 Attorney Pole argues that he should "... be relieved as counsel for Defendant Thano

10 Fuller, as the attorney client relationship has broken down to the point that the client has asked

11 for the Attorney to withdraw from his cases." Mot. for Appointment of Counsel at 1. 12 Defendant believes that Attorney Pole has not represented Defendant "to the best of his 13 ability." Digital Recording at 3:15: 12 (Mot. H'rg. Feb. 18, 2022). Specifically, Defendant is 14 frustrated because he has been incarcerated for two years and has not completed a plea 15 16 agreement. Id. Attorney Pole believes that Defendant would like a more aggressive attorney.

17 Id.

18 Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam Miscellaneous Rule ("MR") 1.1 require the

19 Court appoint an attorney to represent persons unable to obtain adequate representation.

20 However, the rules do not permit indigent defendants to choose their attorneys. Similarly, 21 Guam Rules of Professional Conduct ("GRPR") 1.16(b) allow a lawyer to withdraw from 22 representation if: "(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the 23 interests of the client, (2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's 24 25 services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent, (3) the client has used the

26 lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud, (4) the client insists upon taking action that the

27 lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement, (5) the

Page 2 of 4 l

1 client fails substantially to fulfill reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the

2 obligation is fulfilled, (6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on 3 the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client, or (7) other good cause for 4 withdrawal exists." 5 Defendant and Attorney Pole fail to articulate a reason for withdrawal that satisfies the 6 7 requirements of MR 1.1 or GRPR 1.16. The Court reminds Defendant that he is facing serious

8 charges in this case and in Superior Court of Guam Criminal Case No. CF0162-21. Two years

9 is a standard amount of time to work out a global plea agreement given the charges in

10 Defendant's cases. Under MR 1.1, Defendant is entitled to an attorney, but he is not entitled to

ll a different attorney simply because he does not like his attorney's style. Moreover, the Court 12 . . . does not find any reason that permlts Attorney Pole to withdraw from representatlon under

13 GRPR 1.16. Attorney Pole's belief that Defendant would like a more aggressive attomey- 14 while perhaps accurate-does not constitute good cause to appoint new counsel. Likewise, 15 16 neither Defendant nor Attorney Pole articulated an action Defendant insists upon taking that

17 Attorney Pole finds repugnant or has a fundamental disagreement with. Similarly, neither

18 Defendant nor Attorney Pole has identified an obligation that Defendant fails to fulfill.

19 Finally, nothing suggests that Defendant is using Attorney Pole's services for fraud or criminal

20 actions, or has done so in the past. Accordingly, absent any reason for withdrawal that meets 21 the requirements of MR 1.1 and GRPR 1.16, the Court denies the motion at this time. 22

Page 3 off 1

2 CONCLUSION 3 For the above reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Appointment of 4 Counsel. 5

7 SO ORDERED, None Pro Tune to February 18, 2022 this 'K day of WQQYB 7

2022. 8

( 9 f -> 10

11 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO 12 Judge, Superior Court of Guam

27 Page 4 of 4