Opinion ID: 903291
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stanton’s Post-plea Conflict Claims

Text: In Stanton’s separate filing on April 18, 2011, he renewed his request to withdraw as counsel. He stated: “I agree [with Pena] that I have a conflict consistent with my representations to the Court under seal on December 1, 2010. However, until the Court makes a determination, I am ethically bound to file on behalf of Mr. Pena objections” to the PSR. Stanton wrote that he was proceeding even though, on the same day as his filing, Pena “reaffirmed to [Stanton] to not proceed in his defense because of the conflict of interest . . . that he has not waived.” 10 Case: 11-50482 Document: 00512279158 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/18/2013 No. 11-50482 cons. w/ 11-50484 Stanton objected, inter alia, to the PSR’s inclusion of matters regarding the disputed SDVO monies and inaccuracies relating to this information. Stanton told the court that the paragraphs alleging that Pena had misappropriated funds raise a conflict of interest because Stanton represented SDVO and Carlos Nunez in civil matters directly related to these matters. SDVO had waived a conflict of Stanton’s representation of Pena only “so long as the representation does not bar [Stanton] from proceeding in the defense of SDVO and Nunez on the civil matters.” Stanton also stated that he had “proceeded in representation on the two guilty pleas in reliance on the Court’s statement to disregard the matters the Court raised sua sponte relating to SDVO.” He asked the court to strike the paragraphs relating to SDVO, “consistent with the Court’s statement to [Stanton] to disregard its earlier requirement that the SDVO matters be resolved.” J. Hearing on Pending Motions to Withdraw Counsel and to Withdraw Guilty Plea The district court held a hearing on May 11, 2011.5 The court said that, in its view, it had mooted Stanton’s post-conference conflict claim when it notified the parties that it was withdrawing its requirement that the SDVO litigation be resolved before it accepted Pena’s plea. It noted that Pena had pleaded guilty and ordered the probation officer to prepare an amended PSR to remove references to the SDVO “because, frankly, it is erroneously referred to as a pending charge, and it is not.” Pena represented himself at this hearing, although Stanton was also present. Pena told the district court that Stanton’s conflict arose from the criminal investigation into SDVO. He said that, based on his debriefings with 5 On that same day, the docket was amended to reflect that the district court had denied the first motion to withdraw on December 3, 2010. 11 Case: 11-50482 Document: 00512279158 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/18/2013 No. 11-50482 cons. w/ 11-50484 the government, he understood that the investigation was continuing and that he was a target. The subject matter of the investigation, Pena pointed out, was missing funds, “the funds that [had] been deposited into [Stanton’s] trust.” Pena told the court that Stanton “could have possibly been working under the loyalty of protecting the funds, the funds that belong to an employer, or protecting the company.” When offered an opportunity to speak, Stanton stated: Your honor, my ethical requirements are to not take a position inconsistent with my client. The Court has before it my notice to the Court in response to his motion to withdraw. The Court directed me to remain his counsel. I am doing so. And I have nothing further to add today. The district court advised Pena that it would not consider anything relating to the SDVO civil case or any pending criminal investigation in determining Pena’s sentence. The district court confirmed that, after Stanton filed his December 1, 2010 motion to withdraw, he received notification, through the judge’s law clerk, that the judge would not consider the SDVO matter with respect to Pena’s guilty pleas. The district court described the conflict as an “obscurely described potential conflict having to do with an investigation out there.” It stated that it would not factor in the investigation at sentencing. At the end of the hearing, the district court, sua sponte, revoked Pena’s bond in the belief that Pena’s pro se motions evidenced his failure to accept responsibility for his actions. The district court denied Pena’s pro se motions in a subsequent sealed order on May 18, 2011. This order reflected the court’s oral statements at the hearing that it did not believe Pena had pointed to an actual conflict. The court also characterized any conflict stemming from the government’s intent to use the Rule 404(b) evidence as “hypothetical.” In relevant part, the order stated: 12 Case: 11-50482 Document: 00512279158 Page: 13 Date Filed: 06/18/2013 No. 11-50482 cons. w/ 11-50484 Pena appears to conflate three distinct SDVO matters. Bank of West v. SDVO Contractors . . . is a civil case currently pending before this Court. The Court conducted an in-chambers conference with both parties on December 1, 2010. At the conference the Court mentioned this civil case and stated its opinion that the civil case should be resolved by the time of the plea hearing. After further deliberation, the Court decided the civil case was proceeding in a timely manner and there was no reason to impose such a requirement. . . . The third SDVO matter is an apparent criminal investigation in Arizona. The Court gleaned information about the third SDVO matter from the United States Pretrial Services . . . On August 3, 2010, Pretrial Services sent a Memorandum to the Court reporting a possible bond violation by Pena. . . . The information related to conduct of Pena in connection to SDVO. The district court concluded: “Pena does not identify how simultaneously representing SDVO in a civil matter and Pena in the above-captioned criminal cases present a conflict.” The court also concluded that Pena’s plea colloquy demonstrated that his pleas were knowing and voluntary, and that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation. The court then denied Pena’s motions requesting to replace counsel and to withdraw his guilty pleas. K. Sentencing At the sentencing hearing, the court first established that Pena did not have Stanton or other counsel present with him at the PSR interview. The court then sentenced Pena to a total of 76 months of imprisonment, consisting of two 63-month terms, with 13 months in one case to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in the other. The court also ordered that Pena serve concurrent three-year terms of supervised release and fined him $125,000 in each case (for a total fine of $250,000). 13 Case: 11-50482 Document: 00512279158 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/18/2013 No. 11-50482 cons. w/ 11-50484 Pena timely appealed both of his convictions and sentences. These appeals have been consolidated for our consideration.