Opinion ID: 3154725
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retained Counsel Iacullo’s Representation

Text: In 2012, Defendant and co-defendant Pavlos Kaimacliotis were indicted for conspiracy to commit kidnapping and attempt to kidnap a person for ransom, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(c) and (d). Represented by retained counsel from New Jersey, Anthony Iacullo, 2 Defendant subsequently pled guilty to the conspiracy charge. The presentencing investigation report (“PSR”), prepared by the probation office, set Defendant’s base offense level under the Guidelines at 32, pursuant to 2 Defendant hired Iacullo because a lifelong, close friend of Defendant’s is a partner at Iacullo’s New Jersey-based law firm. 7 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 8 of 35 U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1. It applied a six-level enhancement because a ransom demand was made and a two-level enhancement because Defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of the criminal scheme. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2A4.1(b)(1), 3B1.1(c). The PSR further recommended that Defendant receive a three-level reduction for his timely acceptance of responsibility. As calculated by the PSR, Defendant’s total offense level was 37, with a criminal history category of I, which yielded an advisory Guidelines range of 210–262 months’ imprisonment. On March 1, retained counsel Iacullo wrote a letter to the probation officer, objecting to both enhancements. On March 26, Iacullo moved to continue the April 11 sentencing because he had trial conflicts in New Jersey and also because he needed more time to meet with Defendant and submit a sentencing memorandum. The court denied the motion. Iacullo wrote to the prosecutor asking that the Government produce Anna and Mario, whom Defendant wanted to call as witnesses to challenge the six-level enhancement for demanding a ransom. Noting that Anna and Mario had merely reported the kidnapping plot and had no involvement after the FBI interceded, the Government opposed the request. The Government further explained that Anna was “frightened and reluctant to testify” because Defendant had allegedly threatened to find and kill her to prevent her from testifying. Further, in violation 8 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 9 of 35 of instructions that he not contact Anna, Defendant had written to her from prison, causing her even greater fear and anxiety. On April 8, three days before sentencing, Iacullo filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The court denied the motion. At the sentencing hearing on April 11, Iacullo renewed the motion, stating that his relationship with Defendant had “deteriorated to the point” that he “cannot in good faith and good conscience as to the best of my ability represent him.” Noting that Defendant “requests that certain enhancements be challenged, contrary to the advice that I have provided,” Iacullo explained that he could not honestly pursue such a strategy because he believed it would be harmful to Defendant. In fact, Iacullo stated that he had advised Defendant of the potential ramifications “once we proceed down a certain path” and that it could affect his acceptance of responsibility. Summing up the situation, Iacullo explained, “It’s to the point, Judge, he doesn’t have faith in the information and the relationship.” Confirming Iacullo’s assessment of the broken relationship, Defendant justified his request that the court remove Iacullo as counsel on two grounds: their difference of opinion as to legal strategy and a total breakdown in communication.3 Though Iacullo had not gone into detail regarding the precise disagreement about 3 As to the lack of communication, Defendant told the court he had not seen Iacullo from the time of the change of plea hearing in January until the previous night. Further, he had not yet gone over the PSR with Iacullo. 9 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 10 of 35 strategy, Defendant filled in the blanks, explaining that he wanted to call Anna and Mario as witnesses to establish that Defendant had believed Mario to be part of the Russian mob, which would kill Defendant if he did not do exactly what Mario told him to do. Iacullo had apparently advised him that this was an unwise strategy that created a risk of losing the acceptance of responsibility reduction. Now privy to all of the above information, the district court reconsidered its earlier decision and granted Iacullo’s motion because “there has been a breakdown in trust, confidence and communication in large part simply because [] Mr. Iacullo is a very busy trial lawyer, who practices law at a distance.” As to the Defendant and his lawyer’s difference of opinion as to sentencing strategy, the court advised Defendant to consider the warning Iacullo had given him about the peril in pursuing a strategy that would undermine an argument that he had accepted responsibility for his actions. The court then granted Defendant’s request for appointed counsel, but made clear that Defendant would not be permitted to hand-pick his attorney and that the court did not intend to embark on a series of new-counsel appointments. 4 Pursuant 4 In agreeing to appoint new counsel for Defendant, the court forewarned Defendant: “You understand that you can’t pick your new lawyer and I’m not going to appoint a series of lawyers to represent you. You’re going to have to take whoever I can get to represent you. I’ll get a competent good lawyer to represent you.” 10 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 11 of 35 to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006, the court appointed Randee Golder. A new sentencing date was set for May 21.