Opinion
2:21-cr-00057-RSM
08-15-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CURTIS G. SNIPES, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR NEW COUNSEL, DKT. 216
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant moves the Court for the second time to appoint new counsel claiming he is dissatisfied with counsel and there is an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Dkt. 216. The Court is familiar with Defendant having granted his first motion for new counsel after a hearing and thus need no conduct another hearing to hear how Defendant will not work with counsel.
The Court accordingly ORDERS:
1) The Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for new counsel, Dkt. 216, for one last time. Any further motion Defendant files for new counsel shall be presented to the undersigned judge.
2) The Court grants the motion because trial is set in March 2023 and appointment of new counsel will not delay that trial date.
3) Future motions for new counsel claiming dissatisfaction with counsel or disagreement with counsel's tactical decisions will be summarily denied. Conflicts regarding trial strategy are not a basis for appointment of new counsel because all tactical decisions are committed to the discretion of counsel. United States v. Corona-Garcia, 210 F.3d 973. 977 (9th Cir.2000); Charles v. Mass, 217 Fed.Appx. 710, 711 (9th Cir. 2007) (Sixth Amendment does not entitle criminal defendant to new counsel where defendant disagrees with the tactical decisions of counsel).
4) The Clerk shall provide copies of this order to the parties and contact the Criminal Justice Administrator (CJA) for appointment of new counsel.