ILED suéa R10R COURT 1 OF GUAH
2 202|HAR 3| PH 2: 2 1
3 CLERK DJ' COURT
4 By ll IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5 6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0227-19 ) 7 vs. ) ) 8 PAUL SANTOS MAFNAS, JR., ) DECISION AND ORDER RE. 9 ada Paul Junior Santos Mafias, ) MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS aka Paul Santos Mafnas, ) COUNSEL 10 DOB: 09/24/1965 ) ) 11 Defendant. ) 12 ) n 13
14 Introduction 15 On March 23, 2021, this matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon for a
16 hearing on Defense Counsel's Motion to Withdraw (the "Motion") tiled by Assistant Public
17 Defender Peter J. Sablan, Esq. (hereinafter "Defense Counsel" or "Mr. Sablan"). Defendant Paul
18 Santos Mafnas, Jr. ("Defendant") was present in person with Mr. Sablan. Also present at the
19 hearing was Assistant Attorney General Christine Tenorio representing the People of Guam.1 20 Having heard from Defense Counsel as well as the Defendant during the hearing, the 21 22 Court denied the motion from the bench, articulating that, while the Defendant has a
23 constitutional right to effective counsel, such right is not absolute, and an indigent defendant has
24 no right to choose any specific lawyer to represent him. Thus, while the Court denied the Motion
25 to Withdraw, the Court also relieved Mr. Sablan from his assignment to assist Defendant and 26
27 1 This matter was originally scheduled as a Change of Plea hearing; however, on March 15, 2021, Mr. Sablan filed the Motion to Withdraw. 28 People vs. Maj51as, CF0227-19 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Page 1 of 5 1 specifically directed Public Defender Stephen Hattori to continue to represent Defendant in this
2 case. This Order memorializes the Court's ruling from the bench.
3 Discussion and Analvsis 4 Defendant is charged with FIRST DEGREE CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT (as a let 5 6 Degree Felony), 2 counts; ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE CRHVIINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT
7 (as a 1 sl Degree Felony), 2 counts; and SECOND DEGREE CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT
8 (as a IS Degree Felony), along with Special Allegations of Vulnerable Victim and Possession
9 and Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony. Trial of this matter was scheduled 10 to commence on February 10, 2021, however, on February 8, 2021, the Parties informed the 11 Court that a resolution without triad had been reached and the Court set the Change of Plea 12 13 hearing for March 23, 2021. On March 15, 2021, however, Defense Counsel filed the instant
14 Motion to Withdraw. No Plea Agreement has been submitted by the parties. Defendant has
15 waived his right to speedy trial.
16 An attorney may seek leave to withdraw from representing a client under Rule 1.16 of 17 the Guam Rules of Professional Conduct, which states in relevant pan: 18 [A] lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if (5) the client fails to 19 substantially fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer' s services 20 and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled, (6) the representation.. has been rendered unreasonably 21 difficult by the client, or (7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
22 Guam Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16(b) (2012). In determining whether the Court
23 shall appoint new counsel, the Court notes that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution does 24
28 People vs. Mafias, CF0227-19 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Page 2 of 5 1 not guarantee a "meaningful attorney-client relationship" between an accused and his counsel.
2 See, Morris v. Sloppy, 103 S.ct. 1610, 1617-1618 (1983).2 3 During the hearing, the Court queried Defendant with regard to the perceived breakdown 4 in communications between himself and Defense Counsel, as set forth in the Declaration of Mr. 5 Sablan in support of the motion to withdraw. Although Defendant agreed that there was a 6
7 difference of opinion regarding the strategy of the case, he also believed that there was still a
8 chance that such differences could be resolved:
9 COURT: ...My question to you is: why do you believe that there is a need for you to 10 discharge your counsel? MAFNAS: I felt...I really felt, your Honor, that there was no fight in my counsel, 11 basically. I felt like he was giving up. COURT: Let me ask you this: do you believe that you have a difference of opinion with 12 respect to how to proceed with your case? MAFNAS: Yes, Your Honor 13 COURT: And do you believe that this fundamental difference makes it, uh, essentially 14 impossible for you to continue with Mr. Sablan as your counsel? MAFNAS: [silence]. Idon'tknow. 15 COURT: To put it another way, do you think that there is any room for further discussion between you and Mr. Sablan? 16 MAFNAS: believe there still is. 17 Hrg. at 2:14:35 - 2:15:34 (March 23, 2021). 18 In response, Mr. Sablan stated that there is a "breakdown in communication and I don't 19 20 think he tnlsts my counsel." Id. at 2:16:11-2:16:55. However, counsel for Defendant also
21 indicated that while there are other defense attorneys at the Public Defender Services
22 Corporation, there are only a limited number who are assigned to this Court's courtroom, and 23 Mr. Sablan is the most experienced of those in that assignment. Id. at 2:17:35. The Court Ends 24
26 2 See also,United States v. Brown, 785 F.3d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Rivera-Corona, 618 F.3d at 979), U.S. Const. amend. VI. ("where the court has appointed an attorney for an indigent defendant, the defendant, like all 27 criminal defendants, has 'a constitutional right to effective counsel.' But he does not have the right to the counsel of his choice, that is, 'to have a specific lawyer appointed by the court and paid for by the public."') 28 People vs. Mafias, CF0227-19 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Page 3 of 5 1 that an internal assignment process is not a sufficient reason to appoint new counsel and that
2 Defendant's right to effective counsel would be satisfied by appointing another Public Defender.
3 During the hearing, Assistant Attorney General Tenorio indicated that Mr. Sablan has 4 been a zealous advocate for his client and stated that the plea offer, which counsels believed to 5 have been accepted and which is purportedly very favorable in light of the charges against the 6 7 Defendant, was the result of vigorous negotiations between herself and Mr. Sablan (specifically),
8 resulting in a plea that was "so low." Hrg. at 2:17:45 to 2: 18: 12.
9 In analyzing Mr. Sablan's Motion to Withdraw as counsel for the Defendant, the Court 10 . . . o . . . 1 first ernphasrzes that a court is not required to provide an indigent accused wlth any particular 11 attorney whom he may desire. United States v. Brown, 785 F.3d 1337, 1343 (9111 Cir. 2015)(citing 12 13 Rivera-Corona, 618 F.3d 976, (9* Cir. 2010)(indigent defendants have a constitutional right to
14 effective counsel, but not to have a specific lawyer appointed by the court and paid for by the
15 public). However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that:
16 Where a criminal defendant has, with legitimate reason, completely lost trust in 17 his attorney, and the trial court refuses to remove the attorney, the defendant is constructively denied counsel." United States v. Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d at 18 772, 778-779 (9"' Cir. 2001).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ILED suéa R10R COURT 1 OF GUAH
2 202|HAR 3| PH 2: 2 1
3 CLERK DJ' COURT
4 By ll IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5 6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0227-19 ) 7 vs. ) ) 8 PAUL SANTOS MAFNAS, JR., ) DECISION AND ORDER RE. 9 ada Paul Junior Santos Mafias, ) MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS aka Paul Santos Mafnas, ) COUNSEL 10 DOB: 09/24/1965 ) ) 11 Defendant. ) 12 ) n 13
14 Introduction 15 On March 23, 2021, this matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon for a
16 hearing on Defense Counsel's Motion to Withdraw (the "Motion") tiled by Assistant Public
17 Defender Peter J. Sablan, Esq. (hereinafter "Defense Counsel" or "Mr. Sablan"). Defendant Paul
18 Santos Mafnas, Jr. ("Defendant") was present in person with Mr. Sablan. Also present at the
19 hearing was Assistant Attorney General Christine Tenorio representing the People of Guam.1 20 Having heard from Defense Counsel as well as the Defendant during the hearing, the 21 22 Court denied the motion from the bench, articulating that, while the Defendant has a
23 constitutional right to effective counsel, such right is not absolute, and an indigent defendant has
24 no right to choose any specific lawyer to represent him. Thus, while the Court denied the Motion
25 to Withdraw, the Court also relieved Mr. Sablan from his assignment to assist Defendant and 26
27 1 This matter was originally scheduled as a Change of Plea hearing; however, on March 15, 2021, Mr. Sablan filed the Motion to Withdraw. 28 People vs. Maj51as, CF0227-19 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Page 1 of 5 1 specifically directed Public Defender Stephen Hattori to continue to represent Defendant in this
2 case. This Order memorializes the Court's ruling from the bench.
3 Discussion and Analvsis 4 Defendant is charged with FIRST DEGREE CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT (as a let 5 6 Degree Felony), 2 counts; ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE CRHVIINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT
7 (as a 1 sl Degree Felony), 2 counts; and SECOND DEGREE CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT
8 (as a IS Degree Felony), along with Special Allegations of Vulnerable Victim and Possession
9 and Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony. Trial of this matter was scheduled 10 to commence on February 10, 2021, however, on February 8, 2021, the Parties informed the 11 Court that a resolution without triad had been reached and the Court set the Change of Plea 12 13 hearing for March 23, 2021. On March 15, 2021, however, Defense Counsel filed the instant
14 Motion to Withdraw. No Plea Agreement has been submitted by the parties. Defendant has
15 waived his right to speedy trial.
16 An attorney may seek leave to withdraw from representing a client under Rule 1.16 of 17 the Guam Rules of Professional Conduct, which states in relevant pan: 18 [A] lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if (5) the client fails to 19 substantially fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer' s services 20 and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled, (6) the representation.. has been rendered unreasonably 21 difficult by the client, or (7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
22 Guam Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16(b) (2012). In determining whether the Court
23 shall appoint new counsel, the Court notes that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution does 24
28 People vs. Mafias, CF0227-19 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Page 2 of 5 1 not guarantee a "meaningful attorney-client relationship" between an accused and his counsel.
2 See, Morris v. Sloppy, 103 S.ct. 1610, 1617-1618 (1983).2 3 During the hearing, the Court queried Defendant with regard to the perceived breakdown 4 in communications between himself and Defense Counsel, as set forth in the Declaration of Mr. 5 Sablan in support of the motion to withdraw. Although Defendant agreed that there was a 6
7 difference of opinion regarding the strategy of the case, he also believed that there was still a
8 chance that such differences could be resolved:
9 COURT: ...My question to you is: why do you believe that there is a need for you to 10 discharge your counsel? MAFNAS: I felt...I really felt, your Honor, that there was no fight in my counsel, 11 basically. I felt like he was giving up. COURT: Let me ask you this: do you believe that you have a difference of opinion with 12 respect to how to proceed with your case? MAFNAS: Yes, Your Honor 13 COURT: And do you believe that this fundamental difference makes it, uh, essentially 14 impossible for you to continue with Mr. Sablan as your counsel? MAFNAS: [silence]. Idon'tknow. 15 COURT: To put it another way, do you think that there is any room for further discussion between you and Mr. Sablan? 16 MAFNAS: believe there still is. 17 Hrg. at 2:14:35 - 2:15:34 (March 23, 2021). 18 In response, Mr. Sablan stated that there is a "breakdown in communication and I don't 19 20 think he tnlsts my counsel." Id. at 2:16:11-2:16:55. However, counsel for Defendant also
21 indicated that while there are other defense attorneys at the Public Defender Services
22 Corporation, there are only a limited number who are assigned to this Court's courtroom, and 23 Mr. Sablan is the most experienced of those in that assignment. Id. at 2:17:35. The Court Ends 24
26 2 See also,United States v. Brown, 785 F.3d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Rivera-Corona, 618 F.3d at 979), U.S. Const. amend. VI. ("where the court has appointed an attorney for an indigent defendant, the defendant, like all 27 criminal defendants, has 'a constitutional right to effective counsel.' But he does not have the right to the counsel of his choice, that is, 'to have a specific lawyer appointed by the court and paid for by the public."') 28 People vs. Mafias, CF0227-19 Decision and Order Re. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Page 3 of 5 1 that an internal assignment process is not a sufficient reason to appoint new counsel and that
2 Defendant's right to effective counsel would be satisfied by appointing another Public Defender.
3 During the hearing, Assistant Attorney General Tenorio indicated that Mr. Sablan has 4 been a zealous advocate for his client and stated that the plea offer, which counsels believed to 5 have been accepted and which is purportedly very favorable in light of the charges against the 6 7 Defendant, was the result of vigorous negotiations between herself and Mr. Sablan (specifically),
8 resulting in a plea that was "so low." Hrg. at 2:17:45 to 2: 18: 12.
9 In analyzing Mr. Sablan's Motion to Withdraw as counsel for the Defendant, the Court 10 . . . o . . . 1 first ernphasrzes that a court is not required to provide an indigent accused wlth any particular 11 attorney whom he may desire. United States v. Brown, 785 F.3d 1337, 1343 (9111 Cir. 2015)(citing 12 13 Rivera-Corona, 618 F.3d 976, (9* Cir. 2010)(indigent defendants have a constitutional right to
14 effective counsel, but not to have a specific lawyer appointed by the court and paid for by the
15 public). However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that:
16 Where a criminal defendant has, with legitimate reason, completely lost trust in 17 his attorney, and the trial court refuses to remove the attorney, the defendant is constructively denied counsel." United States v. Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d at 18 772, 778-779 (9"' Cir. 2001). This is true even where the breakdown is a result of the defendant's refusal to speak to counsel, unless the defendant's refusal to 19 cooperate demonstrates "unreasonable contumacy." Brown v. Craven, 424 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1970). 20
21 Daniels v. Woodford, 428 F.3d 1181, 1198 (9* Cir. 2005). Thus, the Court considers the extent
22 of the conflict which has arisen purportedly supporting the withdrawal by Mr. Sablan to serve as
23 , Defendant s Counsel. 24 Mr. Sablan's Declaration indicates that Defendant "has indicated that he no longer wishes 25 26 that I represent him and that a break down in this attorney client relation exist [sic]." Sablan
27 Deal. at '][6 (March 15, 2021). However, during the hearing, Defendant indicated that he believed
28 People vs. Mafnas, CF0227-19 Decision and Order Re. Motion to W ithdraw as Counsel Page 4 of 5 1 that there was still room for further discussion with Mr. Sablan about his case and such a "break-
2 down" does not appear to rise to the level requiring withdrawal by PDSC. See, e.g., United States 3 v. Adelzo-Gonzales, 286 F.3d 772, 779 (9"' Cir. 200l)(defense counsel calling his client a liar 4 and threatening to deliberately lose the case), United States v. Moore, 159 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9* 5 6 Cir. 1998)(defendant threatened to sue his attorney for malpractice). The Court finds that Mr.
7 Sablan's concerns do, however, rise to the level justifying his request to be relieved as counsel
8 for the Defendant, but that the Public Defender Services Corporation, which is the appointed
9 counsel, is not excused from such representation and to the extent that this Court appoints Public
10 Defender Stephen Hattori specifically to represent the Defendant, the Motion to Withdraw is 11 DENIED. 12 Conclusion 13
14 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court finds there is good cause to relieve Mr. Sablan
15 from representing Defendant in this case, but that finds no good cause to relieve the Public
16 Defender Services Corporation and hereby ORDERS and APPOINTS Public Defender
17 Stephen Hattori to represent Defendant in Mr. Sablan's stead. 18
19 rIA.'< 3 1 ZUZ1 SO ORDERED, nuns pro tune March 23, 2021. 20
22 ulllncivus-mins W HONORABLE MARIA T. CENZON JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM I
23 | -¢~~»~»p»un=~u»nm wpyqlunangiuwaswuuieuax 24 AG. r Fuse 25 Date:' la: 26 /Mm Cow Deputy Clerk, Sqberior Court of Guam 27
28 People vs. Maj fas,CF0227-19 DecisionandOrder Re.Motionto WithdrawasCounsel Page5 of5