Opinion ID: 3065267
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continuance and Reappointment of Counsel

Text: Thompson argues that the district court erred when it denied his request for reappointment of counsel at the final pretrial conference on January 12. After noting that it had granted at least twelve or thirteen continuances at Thompson’s request, the district court treated Thompson’s latest request as a request for a continuance based on the fact that Thompson was not prepared to represent himself. The district court denied the request. [6] The district court’s denial of Thompson’s request can be analyzed as either a denial of a continuance or as a denial of a motion to substitute counsel. United States v. Nickerson, 556 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009). “A [d]istrict [c]ourt’s primary reasons for not allowing a defendant new counsel 15886 UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON may determine which analysis to apply.” United States v. Nguyen, 262 F.3d 998, 1001-02 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the district court stated multiple times that it was denying Thompson’s “request for a continuance” based on its well-founded belief that Thompson was deliberately trying to delay trial. Though it also remarked that it was “denying the request for counsel,” it based its denial on the fact that no counsel could be ready for trial by January 16, and proceeded to recount the litany of continuances previously granted to Thompson for the purpose of giving him time to prepare. Thus, we consider the district court to have denied Thompson a continuance. [7] When a decision to grant or deny a continuance implicates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, a court must balance several factors to determine if the denial was “ ‘fair and reasonable.’ ” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Leavitt, 608 F.2d 1290, 1293 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam)). These factors include: [1] whether the continuance would inconvenience witnesses, the court, counsel, or the parties; [2] whether other continuances have been granted; [3] whether legitimate reasons exist for the delay; [4] whether the delay is the defendant’s fault; and [5] whether a denial would prejudice the defendant. Studley, 783 F.2d at 938. “When denying a continuance, especially one that arguably implicates the defendant’s right to counsel, the district court should summarize in the record its reasons for the denial.” Garrett, 179 F.3d at 1147. However, “a continuance may be denied even when that denial results in the defendant’s being unrepresented at trial.” Studley, 783 F.2d at 938 (internal quotation marks omitted). [8] “In addition, a court must be wary against the ‘right of counsel’ being used as a ploy to gain time or effect delay.” United States v. Kelm, 827 F.2d 1319, 1322 (9th Cir. 1987), UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON 15887 overruled on other grounds by United States v. Heredia, 483 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2007). As a result, “a court may force a defendant to proceed pro se if his conduct is ‘dilatory and hinders the efficient administration of justice.’ ” United States v. Meeks, 987 F.2d 575, 579 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Kelm, 827 F.2d at 1322). [9] On January 12, 2007—three and a half years after the initial pretrial conference—the district court held a final pretrial conference. At that conference, which occurred the day before trial was scheduled to begin, Thompson stated that he was not prepared to go to trial and asked the court to reappoint counsel. The district court’s decision to deny that request was more than fair and reasonable. Indeed, we have seldom reviewed a record of proceedings overseen with the level of patience and conscientiousness demonstrated by our able district court colleague in this case. According to the record, the court’s decision to deny the continuance was based on the numerous continuances previously granted, Thompson’s lack of good faith, the court’s own prior warnings that no more continuances would be granted, the fact that any further continuance meant Thompson would remain in custody, and the court’s near certain belief that Thompson would eventually ask to represent himself again in order to delay trial. Thompson’s conduct up to that point was clearly “dilatory” and the district court properly noted the manner in which Thompson had “stymied” the system. In addition, the court had appointed Novak as standby counsel for the trial. Considering all these circumstances, the district court did not err in denying another continuance. See Studley, 783 F.2d at 939 (affirming denial of continuance where denial resulted in the defendant being unrepresented, trial had been delayed three months after the defendant’s arrest, request for continuance had not been made in good faith, trial had already been continued several times, and defendant would not have obtained counsel had continuance been granted); United States v. Robinson, 967 F.2d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1992) (same where defendant had been given two previous continuances, district court 15888 UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON cautioned the defendant before he requested relief of counsel, and court appointed standby counsel during the trial); Garrett, 179 F.3d at 1146-47 (same where record demonstrated the “patience and consideration” the district court afforded to the defendant over a one year period and district court stated that the motion for continuance was being made to delay trial). [10] Moreover, there is no dispute in the record that Thompson knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel after being fully advised by the district court of the dangers of proceeding pro se. Cf. Kelm, 827 F.2d at 1322 (district court properly denied a trial continuance to a defendant who persistently refused to accept an appointed attorney, hire his own attorney, or expressly waive his right to an attorney); Meeks, 987 F.2d at 579 (court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to substitute counsel where the court did not make the defendant aware of the dangers of proceeding pro se such that the defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel). Indeed, Thompson does not dispute his knowing and intelligent waiver. Rather, he argues that under Indiana v. Edwards the district court was compelled to deny his request for self-representation or reappoint counsel. As we explained above, Edwards does not so hold. See Ferguson, 560 F.3d at 1070 n.6. Finally, Thompson’s reliance on Menefield v. Borg, 881 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1989), is misplaced. In Menefield, we considered “whether the trial court erred in denying [the defendant’s] post-trial request for appointment of counsel, and for a continuance which would have enabled appointed counsel to prepare an adequate motion.” 881 F.2d at 699-700. We went on to hold that “an accused who requests an attorney at the time of a motion for a new trial is entitled to have one appointed, unless the government can show that the request is made for a bad faith purpose.” Id. at 701. However, we expressly recognized that “[t]here are times when the criminal justice system would be poorly served by allowing the defendant to reverse his course at the last minute and insist upon UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON 15889 representation by counsel.” Id. at 700 (citing Studley and Leavitt). In line with our precedent, we pointed out, for example, that when “for purposes of delay, criminal defendants have sought continuances on the eve of trial, we have refused to disrupt the proceedings to accommodate their wishes.” Id. That is precisely the situation presented here. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thompson’s request for a continuance.