Opinion ID: 220344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Weighing the relevant factors for abuse of discretion

Text: Although the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee an indigent defendant the right to counsel of choice, see Mooneyham, 473 F.3d at 291, a straight forward application of the factors discussed above should compel the conclusion that the district court abused its discretion in denying substitution of counsel, thus depriving Defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See, e.g., United States v. Bell, 516 F.3d 432, 445 (6th Cir.2008) (noting that the abuse of discretion standard does not deprive this Court of meaningful appellate review even in areas of substantial deference). Any fair reading of the record makes clear that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in denying Defendant's motion to substitute counsel. This is not merely because the district court misapplied the law. Rather the district court so unreasonably and egregiously misapplied the law that its decision cannot be excused even under our most deferential standards of review. Since the deprivation of the right to counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment is a structural error, we presume prejudice and should set aside Defendant's conviction and sentence on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 152, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006).