United States v. Gaspar Torres-Hernandez

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Gaspar Torres-Hernandez

646 F. App'x 552

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 28, 2016

Docket15-10111, 15-10205

StatusUnpublished

This text of 646 F. App'x 552 (United States v. Gaspar Torres-Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Gaspar Torres-Hernandez, 646 F. App'x 552 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant-Appellant Gaspar Torres Hernandez appeals his convictions and sentences for the offense of Reentry of Removed Aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1), and for violating a previously-imposed condition of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Torres Hernandez contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right by denying his requests for new counsel. “[F]orcing a defendant to go to trial with an attorney with whom he has an irreconcilable conflict amounts to constructive denial of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel,” which occurs “where there is a complete breakdown in communication between the attorney and client, and the breakdown prevents effective assistance of counsel.” Stenson v. Lambert, 504 F.3d 873, 886 (9th Cir.2007) (citing Brown v. Craven, 424 F.2d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.1970); then citing Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1026 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc)). When assessing whether there was a Sixth Amendment violation, we consider (1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry; and (3) the extent of the conflict. United States v. Nguyen, 262 F.3d 998, 1004 (9th Cir.2001).

Here, the government agrees Torres Hernandez should have been granted new counsel arid concedes that his convictions and sentences should be vacated. Torres Hernandez and his attorney repeatedly requested that new counsel be assigned be-., fore trial. They made it clear that the relationship lacked trust and communication. Torres Hernandez’s attorney even admitted that he was not concentrating on his client’s trial because of the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. In sum, Torres Hernandez was left to face trial with a lawyer with whom he was not satisfied, would not cooperate, and would *553 not communicate. See Nguyen, 262 F.3d at 1003-04. The district court’s denial of Torres Hernandez’s request for a new lawyer violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The convictions and sentences are therefore vacated.

We decline to reach Torres Hernandez’s other challenges to his sentence.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant-Appellant Gaspar Torres Hernandez appeals his convictions and sentences for the offense of Reentry of Removed Aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1), and for violating a previously-imposed condition of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Torres Hernandez contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right by denying his requests for new counsel. “[F]orcing a defendant to go to trial with an attorney with whom he has an irreconcilable conflict amounts to constructive denial of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel,” which occurs “where there is a complete breakdown in communication between the attorney and client, and the breakdown prevents effective assistance of counsel.” Stenson v. Lambert, 504 F.3d 873, 886 (9th Cir.2007) (citing Brown v. Craven, 424 F.2d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.1970); then citing Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1026 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc)). When assessing whether there was a Sixth Amendment violation, we consider (1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry; and (3) the extent of the conflict. United States v. Nguyen, 262 F.3d 998, 1004 (9th Cir.2001).

Here, the government agrees Torres Hernandez should have been granted new counsel arid concedes that his convictions and sentences should be vacated. Torres Hernandez and his attorney repeatedly requested that new counsel be assigned be-., fore trial. They made it clear that the relationship lacked trust and communication. Torres Hernandez’s attorney even admitted that he was not concentrating on his client’s trial because of the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. In sum, Torres Hernandez was left to face trial with a lawyer with whom he was not satisfied, would not cooperate, and would *553 not communicate. See Nguyen, 262 F.3d at 1003-04. The district court’s denial of Torres Hernandez’s request for a new lawyer violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The convictions and sentences are therefore vacated.

We decline to reach Torres Hernandez’s other challenges to his sentence.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

646 F. App'x 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gaspar-torres-hernandez-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack