Opinion ID: 2685893
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for New Attorney

Text: Thomas was arrested on March 8, 2012. The district court scheduled trial for August 20, 2012. Because Thomas was indigent, the magistrate judge appointed Mark Meyer to represent Thomas on March 28, 2012. On June 27, 2012, Thomas filed a pro se motion for a new attorney. Thomas argued that Meyer had not filed anything on [his] behalf. Thomas was constantly asking [Meyer] to file motions on [his] behalf, but Meyer failed to do so. Thomas argued that Meyer did not have [his] best interest. The magistrate judge conducted a hearing on the motion on July 2, 2012. Thomas reiterated his concerns and noted that Meyer was not defending him but had merely advised him to accept a guilty plea. He also complained that Meyer did not show him any statements from witnesses that implicated Thomas. When asked what motion he wished Meyer to file, Thomas responded: -9- I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure he can find me—if I'm charged with something, I'm pretty sure there is a motion that can be filed as far as this case is. I feel like I'm just sitting here and I'm at the same stage I was at, and all he wants me to do is just take a plea agreement. Meyer then informed the magistrate judge that he and Thomas have discussed the evidence many times. I've even reserved a room at the jail where he could—part of the evidence in the case—this was a case where there was wiretaps. And so I reserved a room where he could actually listen to the recorded conversations, which he's done. And then I've discussed the other evidence in the case again. So I haven't provided him copies of anything because, according to the discovery, standard discovery order, I can't. But I did, and I think he's got it with him here today, I sent him a several page letter summarizing what the evidence was and what my recommendation would be as far as whether to accept a plea agreement or go to trial, and the pitfalls he might run into if he did go to trial. So he knows as much about the case as I do. In addition to the testimony at the hearing, The magistrate judge noted counsel's experience and history before the court in other cases. The magistrate judge denied Thomas's motion for new counsel. After trial, Thomas again filed a pro se motion for new counsel based on the same grounds. Thomas complained that Meyer never met with him prior to trial as the magistrate judge ordered him to do at the previous hearing. The magistrate judge again denied Thomas's motion for new counsel on January 3, 2013. Thomas then retained private counsel on January 25, 2013, with the help of his mother. -10- On appeal, Thomas argues that the magistrate judge erred when he denied [Thomas's] pretrial motion for different court appointed counsel. There was a significant lack of communication between [Thomas and Meyer] to the point where [Thomas] did not receive adequate legal counsel. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel. United States v. Baisden, 713 F.3d 450, 454 (8th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). We have explained that [a]ppointment of new counsel is warranted only when the defendant demonstrates justifiable dissatisfaction with his appointed attorney. United States v. Barrow, 287 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). We have recognized: When faced with a motion to appoint substitute counsel, the district court must balance several factors, including the need to ensure effective legal representation, the need to thwart abusive delay tactics, and the reality that a person accused of crime is often genuinely unhappy with an appointed counsel who is nonetheless doing a good job. The court must conduct an adequate inquiry into the nature and extent of an alleged breakdown in attorney-client communications. The focus of the justifiable dissatisfaction inquiry is the adequacy of counsel in the adversarial process, not the accused's relationship with his attorney. Last minute requests to substitute defense counsel are not favored. Id. at 738 (quotations and citations omitted). Furthermore, we have acknowledged: Justifiable dissatisfaction includes an irreconcilable conflict or a complete breakdown in communication. But it does not include a defendant's frustration with counsel who does not share defendant's tactical opinions but continues to provide zealous representation. Thus, a defendant has no right to an attorney who will docilely do as she is told or to a meaningful relationship with appointed counsel. Baisden, 713 F.3d at 454 (citations omitted). -11- Based on our review of the record, including the testimony provided at the hearing, Thomas has failed to demonstrate justifiable dissatisfaction with Meyer. Although Thomas complained that Meyer did not file any motions on his behalf, Thomas identified no motions that Meyer should have filed in his defense. Thomas's contention that he had not met or discussed the case with Meyer boiled down to a matter of credibility. The magistrate judge chose to believe Meyer's testimony that he had discussed the evidence many times with Thomas and that Meyer had reserved a room at the prison where Thomas could listen to the contents of the wiretaps. We also conclude that Meyer's failure to move for review of Thomas's conditions of release did not prejudice him. In fact, Meyer filed such a motion on the day of the newcounsel hearing, and the magistrate judge denied the motion because Thomas had already had a similar hearing in Chicago. Consequently, Thomas could demonstrate only frustration with counsel who d[id] not share [his] tactical opinions. See Baisden, 713 F.3d at 454. Because Thomas failed to show a justifiable dissatisfaction with Meyer at the time of the motion and hearing, the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Thomas's motion for new attorney. Thomas accentuates alleged errors that Meyer made at trial. As the government notes, however, ineffective-assistance claims are best left for collateral proceedings like § 2255 petitions. United States v. Thompson, 690 F.3d 977, 992 (8th Cir. 2012). We decline to accept Thomas's invitation to address Meyer's alleged ineffective assistance at this time.