Opinion ID: 172252
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Request for New Counsel and Cumulative Error

Text: Finally, Byrum claims the district court erred in denying his request for additional time to obtain new counsel and that the accumulation of errors in his case warrants a reversal. We disagree. We review the district court's denial of a motion for substitute counsel for abuse of discretion. United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1140 (10th Cir. 2005). To warrant a substitution of counsel, the defendant must show good cause, such as a conflict of interest, a complete breakdown of communication or an irreconcilable conflict which leads to an apparently unjust verdict. Id. (quoting United States v. Padilla, 819 F.2d 952, 955 (10th Cir.1987)). In making this assessment, we normally ask whether (1) the defendant's request was timely; (2) the trial court adequately inquired into defendant's reasons for making the request; (3) the defendant-attorney conflict was so great that it led to a total lack of communications precluding an adequate defense; and (4) the defendant substantially and unreasonably contributed to the communication breakdown. Id. Based on our review of the entire record, none of these concerns are implicated here; Byrum failed to show good cause and therefore was not entitled to his requested relief. After the district court inquired into the purported reasons for seeking substitute counsel, Byrumattempting to fashion a conflict with his attorneyreplied that his attorney refused to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. But as the district court properly noted, such a motion would have been pointless since the court had already accepted Byrum's guilty plea and nothing supported withdrawal. Assuming the district court accepted the plea agreement's 180-month sentence, as it ultimately did, there was nothing left for substitute counsel to do. Byrum has never demonstrated any evidence of a total lack of communications between him and his attorney. Rather, Byrum's last minute motion appears to have been nothing more than a delay tactic. But even so, the court granted a short continuance so the motion could be fully developed. After further review, the court denied the request. We are satisfied the district court properly balance[d] the need for efficient administration of the criminal justice system against... [Byrum's] right to counsel. United States v. Beers, 189 F.3d 1297, 1302 (10th Cir.1999) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, the district court specifically concluded that Byrum's counsel had competently represented him. We therefore find no abuse of discretion. And, as noted by the district court, Byrum received a favorable sentencing deal well below the relevant sentencing guideline range he would have faced if convicted. Finally, because we find the district court did not err, there can be no accumulation of errors.