Opinion ID: 2975226
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Nelson’s Complaints regarding his Counsel

Text: - 12 - No. 06-3027 U.S.A. v. Nelson Nelson claims that the district court should have held a hearing on his allegations regarding his attorney, and should have appointed a new attorney. During his sentencing hearing, Nelson made statements to the court reflecting his dissatisfaction with the trial, the prosecuting attorney, and his own attorney. Nelson’s statements regarding his attorney included the following: “And obviously, it was nothing, because he didn’t go - he didn’t do anything. . . . He come here. He sat down beside me, as he’s doing now, and did nothing.” JA at 133. “So how am I going to help myself? Nobody else is helping me. So I’m trying to do what I can.” JA at 134. “Then Jonathan didn’t find out what he was - what statement he was going to make. He didn’t do one thing.” JA at 135. After Nelson finished speaking, his attorney addressed the court. He stated that Nelson had been a cooperative client, but had “good days and bad days” as a result of a recent stroke. JA at 140. He also stated that Nelson had been frustrated by the different procedural rules that apply in state and federal court. Nelson made no further statements to the court. The denial of a defendant’s motion to substitute counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambers, 441 F.3d 438, 446 (6th Cir. 2006). Factors relevant to this determination are:
(2) the adequacy of the court’s inquiry into the matter, (3) the extent of the conflict between the attorney and client and whether it was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense, and (4) the balancing of these factors with the public’s interest in the prompt and efficient administration of justice. - 13 - No. 06-3027 U.S.A. v. Nelson Id. (quoting United States v. Mack, 258 F.3d 548, 556 (6th Cir. 2001)). In the instant case, Nelson never unequivocally asked the district court to appoint a new attorney; he merely expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney’s performance. Furthermore, Nelson’s complaints were not timely; he expressed them for the first time at his sentencing hearing. The district court made an adequate inquiry into the matter; Nelson was allowed to make statements spanning nine pages in the transcript. Nelson’s attorney explained that there was neither a conflict nor a lack of communication between them, and that Nelson’s frustration was due to his stroke and the difference in procedural rules between state and federal court. Nelson did not object to this characterization of his statements. The district court stated that Nelson’s attorney conducted himself professionally and “represented [Nelson] in a more than stellar manner during this whole trial.” JA at 138. Under these facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint new counsel for Nelson, or in not holding further hearings on the matter.