Jose Manuel Perez was convicted in the Central District of California on three counts of being a felon in possession of firearms. During the proceedings, Perez made multiple requests to replace his trial counsel. The district court denied a second request made on the first day of trial without conducting an inquiry into the reasons for the request. Later, after the plea but before sentencing, Perez filed a third request alleging a complete breakdown in communication and that his attorney was not truthful about the evidence. The district court denied this motion as well, reasoning that Perez would be unhappy with any new attorney. Additionally, the district court sentenced Perez based on a prior California conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, treating it as a crime of violence to increase his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines.
The Ninth Circuit applied the three-factor test from United States v. Velazquez to evaluate the requests for substitute counsel. Regarding the second request, the court found no abuse of discretion because the motion was untimely and Perez did not allege a serious breach of trust or significant breakdown in communication; he only complained about trial strategy, which is generally left to counsel. However, the court reversed the denial of the third request. The district court failed to question Perez or his attorney privately and in depth as required by precedent. The record showed Perez believed his attorney was untruthful about the government's evidence, a serious allegation that necessitated an inquiry. The court held that the lack of inquiry weighed in Perez's favor and that the motion was timely. On the sentencing issue, the court reviewed the application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. It found that the district court erred in classifying a prior California Penal Code section 245(a)(1) conviction as a crime of violence. Citing a recent en banc decision, United States v. Gomez, the Ninth Circuit clarified that this specific statute does not meet the definition of a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). This error was deemed plain error, requiring vacatur of the sentence. The court affirmed the application of other enhancements, including the aggregation of firearms across counts and the enhancement for possession while leaving the United States, finding sufficient evidence for those applications.
The case is remanded to the district court for a new hearing on the motion to substitute counsel and for resentencing. The resentencing must exclude the enhancement based on the prior California conviction, likely resulting in a lower sentence. The district court must conduct a proper inquiry into the attorney-client relationship before ruling on the substitution request. The decision reinforces that trial courts cannot deny counsel substitution motions without probing the specific reasons for the conflict, particularly when a defendant alleges a breakdown in trust or communication.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download