United States v. Tobias Soto-Melchor, 20-10020

Tobias Soto-Melchor, charged with methamphetamine distribution, moved shortly before trial to substitute his appointed federal defender with a lawyer he would retain.
The district court denied the requests, finding substitution would require a significant continuance and the court could not set a new near-term trial date given the Eastern District of California’s caseload.
The court noted two prior continuances had already been granted and found Soto-Melchor’s complaints stemmed from disagreement over his lawyer’s accurate description of a government plea offer, not from a breakdown in communications.
The district court held two ex parte hearings and made a specific inquiry into the conflict; appointed counsel remained prepared for trial and the plea offer remained available.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial both as (a) a refusal to grant a continuance and (b) denial of substitution of counsel, and affirmed the district court’s exercise of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of substitution should be treated as denial of a continuance implicating Sixth Amendment right to counsel	Soto-Melchor: needed new counsel; continuance required to secure retained counsel	Court/Government: continuance would inconvenience court and witnesses, district has heavy caseload, prior continuances, delay was defendant-caused, no prejudice	Affirmed: denial of continuance was not an abuse of discretion under Turner factors
Whether district court abused discretion in denying motion to substitute counsel	Soto-Melchor: as one who can afford counsel he is entitled to counsel of choice	Court/Government: substitution would cause significant delay; court’s inquiry was adequate; conflict was not so severe to preclude an adequate defense	Affirmed: three-part Torres-Rodriguez/Rivera-Corona test favors denial (untimely, adequate inquiry, conflict not disabling)

United States v. Nguyen, 262 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2001) (analyzing denial as continuance vs. substitution)
United States v. Turner, 897 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2018) (continuance abuse-of-discretion and Sixth Amendment factors)
United States v. Reyes-Bosque, 596 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for district court inquiry into counsel conflicts)
United States v. Rivera-Corona, 618 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2010) (right to counsel of choice balanced against court calendar)
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (scope of the right to counsel of choice)
United States v. Torres-Rodriguez, 930 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1991) (three-part framework when substitution causes delay)
United States v. Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors for substitution motions)
United States v. Moore, 159 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 1998) (examples of breakdowns preventing effective counsel)
United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2002) (manufactured discontent is insufficient to require substitution)