Opinion ID: 201238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Colón's Pro Se Motion for New Counsel

Text: 4 After Colón was indicted and arrested in November 2001, the court appointed Peña as defendant's counsel on the day of defendant's arraignment. Following two status conferences held on December 19, 2001, and February 1, 2002, Colón filed a pro se motion requesting the appointment of a new attorney. The district court received the motion on April 2. In his pro se motion, which Colón filed in Spanish and which is now reproduced in English for the appellate record, Colón contended that the client-attorney relationship has deteriorated due to the attitude by counselor Peña of insisting in his persuasive way to try to push me into a decision without having counseled me in a competent and effective manner so that [the defendant] would make a correct decision before the Court. Defendant's pro se motion specifically alleged that his attorney had provided him with no documents related to his case, including the indictment, discovery materials, or any statements of governmental witnesses producible under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. 2 Additionally, the defendant alleged that while he was talking to his attorney on March 25, 2002, they were approached by another one of [Peña's] clients ... [who] started yelling to Peña saying he was an incompetent and anti-ethical attorney, that he never handed him any document regarding his criminal case and that he cheated him by stating that he was ready to see his case. Then, according to defendant's translated pro se motion, Peña reacted in an anti-professional and anti-ethical manner and the argument between him and his [other] client descended to levels which cannot be quoted at this time. The district court did not respond to defendant's pro se motion for new counsel.