United States v. Robinson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24081
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Robinson was convicted on 13 counts for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank bribery, making false statements to a financial institution, and wire fraud, and was sentenced to 78 months.
- He initially had private counsel, then asked to replace counsel on the first day of trial; the district court denied the request as a delay tactic.
- An in camera hearing revealed Robinson sought new counsel because of disagreements over trial strategy and witnesses, including whether to call an unindicted coconspirator.
- Trial proceeded with Robinson maintaining his innocence; the six-day trial ended with a guilty verdict on all counts.
- At sentencing, Robinson offered a lengthy allocution denying guilt and alleging constitutional violations; the court noted no remorse and emphasized deterrence, sentencing within the Guidelines range of 70–87 months.
- On appeal, Robinson challenges the denial of the continuance and the consideration of his allocution in sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying a continuance to substitute counsel | Robinson | Robinson sought new counsel due to strategic disagreements | No abuse of discretion |
| Whether the denial of substitute counsel violated the right to counsel of choice | Robinson | Court balanced right against orderly proceedings | Right not violated; court properly balanced factors |
| Whether the district court improperly considered allocution in sentencing | Robinson | Allocution may inform sentencing; Hildebrand allows consideration | No plain error; district court could consider defendant’s attitude and conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cordy, 560 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuance to substitute counsel; balancing factors)
- United States v. Issaghoolian, 42 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 1994) (trial court discretion in continuance decisions; unforeseen circumstances)
- United States v. Nguyen, 608 F.3d 368 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard to prevail on motion to substitute counsel; justifiable dissatisfaction)
- United States v. Hildebrand, 152 F.3d 756 (8th Cir. 1998) (allocution may be considered in sentencing; no error in considering attitude)