From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Marin-Torres

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nov 28, 2016
No. 15-30044 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-30044

11-28-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONEL MARIN-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00038-HZ-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 9, 2016 Portland, Oregon Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). --------

Leonel Marin-Torres appeals his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3) and 7(3) and possession of prison contraband in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1791(a)(2), (b)(3), (d)(1)(B) and 7(3). Marin-Torres contends he was effectively denied his right to represent himself in violation of the Sixth Amendment, see Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821 (1975), because the district court denied him adequate access to discovery. Marin-Torres, whose is Spanish speaking, primarily contests the district court's denial of his request to have a complete set of translated discovery and the court's entry of a protective order prohibiting him from retaining discovery materials in his cell. "We review de novo whether there has been a violation of . . . the Sixth Amendment right to make a defense[,]" United States v. Stever, 603 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

Marin-Torres' right to self-representation under Faretta necessarily includes the right to prepare a defense. See Milton v. Morris, 767 F.2d 1443, 1446 (9th Cir. 1985). This right includes "time to prepare and some access to materials and witnesses" but "is not unlimited." Id. "Security considerations and avoidance of abuse by opportunistic or vacillating defendants may require special adjustments." Id.

Here, the district court appointed standby counsel, bilingual interpreters and investigators to assist Marin-Torres with his review of discovery materials. The district court also allowed Marin-Torres to have key documents translated into Spanish. Prisoner and officer safety required restricting Marin-Torres' ability to retain and review materials outside of the presence of his defense team. These "special adjustments" were based on legitimate security concerns.

Marin-Torres responded to these accommodations by repeatedly obstructing his defense team's efforts to review discovery with him, electing to protest his unrequited demands rather than work within the reasonable confines set by the district court. To the extent Marin-Torres was not prepared to present a defense at trial, it was the result of his own choices. We cannot fault the district judge, who exhibited commendable patience in attempting to accommodate Marin-Torres' requests and his right to present a defense.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Marin-Torres

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nov 28, 2016
No. 15-30044 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2016)
Case details for

United States v. Marin-Torres

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONEL MARIN-TORRES…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Nov 28, 2016

Citations

No. 15-30044 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2016)

Citing Cases

Marin-Torres v. United States

Both convictions were affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Marin-Torres, 671 Fed.Appx. 468 (9th…