Opinion ID: 2780869
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Pro Se Brief.

Text: This brings us to the defendant's pro se brief, which advances what amount to three additional assignments of error.5 We first set the stage and then address the defendant's claims. 1. Setting the Stage. After Attorney Cloherty moved to withdraw, the district court conducted two hearings. At the first hearing, Attorney Cloherty indicated that he and the defendant disagreed about what arguments to present in the suppression motion. He did not offer any specifics, but said that he and the defendant had been trying to reconcile their differences. For his part, the defendant provided little further illumination. Premised in part on its own observations, the district court concluded that the defendant and Attorney Cloherty were communicating and, at most, had described a vague dispute over legal strategy. The court told the defendant that it would not appoint yet a fourth attorney for him. Consequently, he had the choice of continuing to be represented by Attorney Cloherty or proceeding pro se. After conferring with Attorney Cloherty, the defendant stated a preference for representing himself with Attorney Cloherty as standby counsel. But when the court attempted to conduct a waiver colloquy, see Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 5 The pro se brief hints at other claims — but these are either insufficiently developed or plainly unsupportable. -20- 806, 835 (1975), the defendant refused to participate. On that discordant note, the court adjourned the hearing. Attorney Cloherty thereafter filed a status report, stating that he had spoken to the defendant and that the defendant wished to proceed pro se (with Cloherty as standby counsel). The court then convened a second hearing, at which the defendant once again urged the court to appoint new counsel. He explained that he and Attorney Cloherty disagreed about whether and how to raise the issue of standing in connection with the apartment search. Attorney Cloherty suggested that the standing issue was not the best example of their disagreements; the defendant, he said, wanted him to raise other (unidentified) issues, none of which he (Attorney Cloherty) thought viable. The court revisited the matter, and again concluded that the attorney-client relationship had not experienced an irretrievable breakdown. Thus, the court refused to appoint new counsel. The court then embarked on a Faretta colloquy. As a precursor, it warned the defendant that he would not represent himself as effectively as would Attorney Cloherty. The defendant acknowledged as much but nonetheless persisted in his decision to proceed pro se with standby counsel.6 6 At the first hearing, the concept of standby counsel had been fully explained to the defendant. -21- Beginning the Faretta colloquy, the court carefully informed the defendant that he had a constitutional right to counsel and that his waiver of that right must be knowing and voluntary. The court reminded the defendant that he was not a lawyer and that Attorney Cloherty would almost certainly do a better job for him. It then warned that by presenting certain issues . . . [the defendant] may actually be presenting certain information to the Court or to the government that may be a hazard to him. Notwithstanding these admonitions, the defendant repeated that he wanted to represent himself — and he signed a written waiver of his right to counsel. 2. Denial of Motion to Withdraw. The defendant's first pro se claim of error relates to the district court's denial of Attorney Cloherty's motion to withdraw.7 The governing legal principles are familiar. A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a right of the highest order. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 467-68 (1938). Thus, an indigent defendant in a criminal case is entitled to appointed counsel — but that does not mean that such a defendant has an unbounded right to the particular counsel of his choosing. See United States v. Myers, 7 The defendant complains not only that the court should have granted the motion to withdraw but also that the court should have agreed to appoint new counsel. Since these are two sides of the same coin, see, e.g., United States v. Díaz-Rodríguez, 745 F.3d 586, 590 n.4 (1st Cir. 2014), we analyze the claim of error solely in terms of the motion to withdraw. -22- 294 F.3d 203, 206 (1st Cir. 2002). In some circumstances, a district court may force a defendant to choose between proceeding with unwanted counsel or no counsel at all. See, e.g., United States v. Proctor, 166 F.3d 396, 402 (1st Cir. 1999). We review the denial of a motion to withdraw for abuse of discretion.8 See United States v. Reyes, 352 F.3d 511, 515 (1st Cir. 2003). In conducting this tamisage, we assay the timeliness of the motion, the adequacy of the court's inquiry into the defendant's complaint, and whether the conflict between the defendant and his counsel was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the first two factors are not in dispute: the government concedes the timeliness of the motion, and both sides agree that the court's inquiry was adequate. Accordingly, we train the lens of our inquiry on the third factor. Reviewing the record that was before the district court when it made the challenged ruling, see United States v. Pierce, 60 F.3d 886, 891 (1st Cir. 1995), we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw. Neither 8 It is an open question in this circuit whether an unconditional guilty plea bars a defendant from later contesting the denial of a motion to withdraw. See United States v. Hicks, 531 F.3d 49, 54 n.8 (1st Cir. 2008); United States v. Gaffney, 469 F.3d 211, 214-15 (1st Cir. 2006). Here, however, the government has not argued that the defendant is barred from contesting the denial of the motion. Consequently, the government has waived the point. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990). -23- the defendant nor Attorney Cloherty identified the full extent of their disagreement. Although the defendant noted a dispute about standing, Attorney Cloherty indicated that issue was not the primary source of their discord, and the defendant provided no further details. In addition, the record makes manifest that Attorney Cloherty and the defendant were communicating at an acceptable level before, during, and after the hearings on the motion to withdraw. We hold, therefore, that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw. See United States v. Francois, 715 F.3d 21, 29 (1st Cir. 2013) (holding that disdain for counsel's advice was not irreparable breakdown where client and counsel were communicating); United States v. Woodard, 291 F.3d 95, 108 (1st Cir. 2002) (holding that attorney's refusal to file a motion he deemed frivolous, without more, did not constitute irreparable breakdown). 3. Waiver Colloquy. The defendant next claims that his waiver of the right to counsel was invalid because the district court failed to give him appropriate advice about his rights. This claim lacks force. To be sure, a criminal defendant may waive his right to legal representation. See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834. But because significant disadvantages accompany self-representation, the trial court must ensure that such a waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. See Woodard, 291 F.3d at 109. To this end, the court -24- must make certain that the defendant states his intent to relinquish his right to counsel in unequivocal language. Id. Relatedly, the court must advise the defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835 (internal quotation marks omitted). Seeking to find sanctuary in these protections, the defendant argues that he never expressed his desire to represent himself in unequivocal terms. This argument is belied by the record. The defendant's decision to proceed pro se was stated in no uncertain terms in the written status report that Attorney Cloherty filed with the district court on his behalf. The defendant reaffirmed that decision both in his response to the court's questioning at the second hearing and in the waiver form that he executed. The defendant's fallback position is that his waiver of the right to counsel was not knowing and intelligent because the court's Faretta warning was inadequate. This claim comprises more cry than wool. At a Faretta hearing, the district court is not required to make a rote recitation of a detailed script. See United States v. Robinson, 753 F.3d 31, 43 (1st Cir. 2014). While a court must do more than make vague allusions to the consequences of a waiver, -25- the efficacy of the court's Faretta warning must be evaluated on the basis of the record as a whole. We will uphold a waiver of the right to counsel as long as the record supports a reasoned conclusion that the defendant was fully apprised of his right to counsel and of the disadvantages he would encounter should he elect to proceed pro se. See id. at 44-45; Francois, 715 F.3d at 30-31. The Faretta warning here easily passes through this screen. The district court warned the defendant of the general dangers of self-representation. Indeed, the court went so far as to tell the defendant that it was a terrible idea for him to represent himself. The court also warned him that, without a lawyer, he might inadvertently reveal information that would come back to bite him. Even though the colloquy was relatively brief, the record as a whole adequately supports the court's determination that the defendant's waiver of the right to counsel was made with his eyes wide open. See, e.g., Robinson, 753 F.3d at 44-46; United States v. LaBare, 191 F.3d 60, 67-68 (1st Cir. 1999). The defendant's choice may well have been foolhardy, but it was not uninformed. 4. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. The defendant's remaining claim is rooted in the notion that Attorney Cloherty was ineffective in the run-up to the suppression motion and that, therefore, the defendant had no practical choice but to go it alone. This claim is not properly before us. -26- It is well-settled that factbound claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, not raised in the district court, cannot be broached for the first time on direct review. See United States v. Mala, 7 F.3d 1058, 1063 (1st Cir. 1993). Rather, such claims typically must be brought before the district court in a collateral post-conviction proceeding. See id. Although we may make an occasional exception in those rare instances in which the record is sufficiently developed to permit reasoned consideration of a previously unexplored ineffective assistance claim at the appellate level, see, e.g., United States v. Natanel, 938 F.2d 302, 309 (1st Cir. 1991), this case falls well within the compass of the general rule. The record below is utterly devoid of relevant information concerning what transpired between Attorney Cloherty and the defendant. The same holds true for the defendant's belated suggestion that he was forced to plead guilty because of Attorney Cloherty's deficient trial preparation. Consequently, we dismiss this claim of error without prejudice to the defendant's right to seek relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.