United States v. Smith
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9948
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Smith was charged February 21, 2008 in a 20-count indictment alleging conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances; he was identified as a Tree Top Piru member of the Bloods.
- The district court appointed a distinguished federal attorney to represent Smith on March 24, 2008; Smith was detained pending trial and trials were grouped.
- In early 2009 Smith wrote multiple letters complaining about trial counsel, including concerns of potential collusion and asking for alternate counsel; counsel and Smith discussed this during court proceedings.
- Ahead of rearraignment, the government anticipated a Rule 11 guilty plea but Smith insisted counsel did not adequately represent him; the court told him the options were to work with current counsel, hire private counsel, or represent himself.
- The Rule 11 rearraignment occurred May 6, 2009 after postponement; Smith signed the plea agreement and a factual stipulation, stating he was completely satisfied with his attorney.
- At sentencing on August 14, 2009, Smith reiterated dissatisfaction with counsel; the court again advised him of his options and ultimately sentenced him to 151 months, bottom of the guidelines range; Smith appealed, and substitute appellate counsel was appointed after government declined the plea waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s denial of substitute counsel violated Smith’s rights | Smith contends denial deprived him of Sixth Amendment counsel | Government argues no error; standard of review appropriate to the district court’s inquiry | No Sixth Amendment violation; inquiries adequate and counsel provided meaningful assistance |
| Whether the guilty plea was involuntary due to lack of counsel | Smith asserts constructive denial of counsel made plea involuntary | Government argues no constructive denial; plea voluntary given ongoing counsel communication | Plea was voluntary; no constructive denial of counsel that tainted the plea |
| What standard of review applies to substitution decisions | Smith argues de novo review for Sixth Amendment voluntariness | Government urges abuse-of-discretion review | De novo review governs voluntariness; district court’s factual findings reviewed for clear error; when substitution required, it is not discretionary |
| Whether the sentencing proceeding was affected by counsel’s breakdown | Smith claims inability to present compelling argument due to lawyer conflict | Government argues substantial communication existed; inquiry was adequate | No reversible error; record shows Smith and counsel discussed PSR and sentencing issues and courtroom presentation was adequate |
| Timeliness of renewal of substitution requests at sentencing | Renewed requests at sentencing were timely defenses of prior ruling | Requests treated as re-promised objections; timing not a bar | Timeliness did not require remand; court adequately addressed concerns during sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (guilty plea voluntary when counsel protects against coercion; presence of counsel aids understanding of law and facts)
- Moussaoui v. United States, 591 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2010) (constructive denial of counsel can render plea involuntary; structural defect not subject to harmless-error review)
- Gonzalez-Lopez v. Oklahoma, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (right to counsel focuses on receiving assistance, not identity of attorney; communication breakdown shows lack of assistance)
- Gallop v. United States, 838 F.2d 105 (4th Cir. 1988) (standard for evaluating denial of substitution of counsel; three inquiries including breakdown of communication)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (per se violation when counsel’s competence is so lacking that no meaningful defense is possible)