UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-80144-CR-Smith/Maynard(s)(s)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT,

Defendant. 

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW

The United States respectfully responds to defendant Joff Stenn Wroy Philossaint’s Motion 

to Withdraw as Counsel (D.E. 211).

Philossaint was indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to launder money, 

and procuring naturalization contrary to law. D.E. 32, 58, 107. He pled guilty to conspiracy to 

commit wire fraud and conspiracy to launder money. D.E. 93. He was found guilty at trial of 

procuring naturalization contrary to law. D.E. 198. He has been represented throughout the case by 

Ian Goldstein, whom he retained. 

In his motion to withdraw, Goldstein represents that, “since the jury’s verdict, there have 

arisen irreconcilable differences between the undersigned counsel and the defendant, which have 

resulted in counsel’s inability to provide continued effective counsel to Mr. Philossaint.” D.E. 211 

at ¶ 4. He further states that Philossaint cannot afford new counsel, and therefore requests 

appointment of counsel. D.E. 211 at ¶ 6. 

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 1 of 3
2

If Philossaint wants to discharge his retained counsel, the Sixth Amendment guarantees him 

the right to do so, regardless of whether there are irreconcilable differences between Philossaint and 

Goldstein. See United States v. Jimenez-Antunez, 820 F.3d 1267, 1271 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Because a 

defendant who moves to dismiss his retained counsel maintains the right to counsel of choice, a 

district court cannot require the defendant to show good cause.”) And Philossaint has the right to 

discharge retained counsel even if Philossaint would then need appointment of counsel. See id. (“A 

defendant exercises the right to counsel of choice when he moves to dismiss retained counsel, 

regardless of the type of counsel he wishes to engage afterward. . . . .. . . . [A] defendant may discharge 

his retained counsel without regard to whether he will later request appointed counsel.”). However, 

Goldstein’s motion does not state that Philossaint wants Goldstein replaced, only that, in 

Goldstein’s opinion, irreconcilable differences have arisen between them. On Tuesday, March 7, 

2023, the undersigned spoke with Goldstein. Goldstein confirmed that Philossaint has not 

expressed a desire for new counsel, but that Goldstein believes that there are irreconcilable 

differences between himself and Philossaint.

Given this law and these facts, the government recommends that the Court proceed as 

follows: The Court should hold a hearing with Philossaint present. At the hearing, the Court should

first determine whether Philossaint wishes to discharge Goldstein. If so, the Court should determine 

whether Philossaint is indigent. If Philossaint wishes to discharge Goldstein and is indigent, the 

Court should grant Goldstein’s motion to withdraw and should appoint counsel for Philossaint.* If 

Philossaint wishes to discharge Goldstein but is not indigent, the Court should still allow Philossaint 

* The Federal Public Defender represented codefendant Breanna Monique Gayle.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 2 of 3
3 

to exercise his right to discharge Goldstein. However, in that circumstance, the government 

recommends that the Court wait until new counsel has filed a notice of appearance before allowing

Goldstein to withdraw. Otherwise, Philossaint might be left without representation. On the other 

hand, if Philossaint wants to continue with Goldstein as his attorney, the Court should determine 

whether there are indeed irreconcilable differences between Goldstein and Philossaint, such that 

Goldstein cannot provide effective assistance of counsel. If so, the Court should grant Goldstein’s 

motion to withdraw. In that case, the Court should again determine whether Philossaint is indigent. 

If he is, the Court should counsel for him. However, if the Court finds that Goldstein is capable of 

providing effective assistance and that Philossaint wants him to do so, the Court should deny

Goldstein’s motion to withdraw. 

WHEREFORE, the government recommends the Court hold a hearing as described above.

Respectfully submitted,

MARKENZY LAPOINTE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: s/ Marc Osborne

Assistant United States Attorney

Court ID# A5500796 

500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Tel: (561) 209-1014 

marc.osborne@usdoj.gov

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 3 of 3