Opinion ID: 2570218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Adequacy of the district court's inquiry

Text: In Young, this court discussed at length the requirement that the district court must make an adequate inquiry into the defendant's complaint. [22] The court in Young determined that, in the face of Young's repeated attempts to raise the issue, the district court conducted an abbreviated inquiry into his motion even though Young repeatedly expressed concern over the lack of attorney-client communication and his attorney's complete failure to file any pretrial motions or contact witnesses. [23] More importantly, Young's attorney had visited him only one time in the ten weeks before trial, in direct violation of a court order to make weekly visitations with the defendant. [24] Here, Garcia filed his motion seeking the substitution of counsel in open court, but refused to speak to the court regarding the matter, stating, I just want to turn this paperwork into you, I don't want to speak. I don't want to speak, I just want to turn this paperwork into you. His attorney, Mr. Sciscento, noted that he had spoken with Garcia and reviewed the discovery with him through an interpreter. Garcia's real concern appears to be that his attorney would not leave the discovery with him at the jail. We conclude that the court's inquiry, although limited, was adequate under the circumstances. There was little need to perform an in camera hearing in this case, especially considering that Garcia's attorney addressed the court on the motion and agreed to resolve the issues in due course. As such, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to hold a hearing regarding Garcia's motion to substitute counsel.