Opinion ID: 2791467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: March 22, 2013 Hearing

Text: The district court set sentencing for March 22, 2013. A few days before the hearing, Mr. Vigil wrote to the court requesting a new attorney because Mr. Carter refused to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court responded that it found no good cause for another lawyer to be appointed, denied the request, and advised Mr. Vigil to either proceed with Mr. Carter or represent himself. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Vigil insisted on moving to withdraw his guilty plea, and Mr. Carter refused to join that motion. The district court gave Mr. Vigil two options: keep Mr. Carter as counsel and do not file the motion, or proceed pro se and file the motion himself. The court advised Mr. Vigil that filing the motion would be deemed 2 The court stated: I have been advised by [the Federal Public Defender] that Mr. Carter . . . will likely be assigned to represent Mr. Vigil and is likely to be contacting you tomorrow, Mr. Vigil, to undertake that process. As I stated, I am willing to do this once; but if Mr. Carter is not able to satisfy your needs for legal counsel, you will be having yourself as a lawyer, and you will be forfeiting your right to an attorney in this process because of your inability to cooperate with the attorney that you have. So you understand that and we’ve discussed that. I just want to make sure it’s clear so that if this matter comes back, I’m not going to delay it any further. We’re going to go forward. So this is your opportunity to have a fresh set of eyes look at your situation and give you advice and represent your interests. Supp. ROA, Vol. III at 20. -4- a voluntary waiver of counsel, and warned him in an extended colloquy of the perils of proceeding in this manner. In relevant part, the court stated, In representing yourself, you’ll be placing yourself at the risks of not being learned in the law. Do you understand this? . . . [Y]ou will be placing yourself in a situation where you will be faced with the sentencing guidelines and the various issues—legal issues that may pertain to those, and you will also be trying to maneuver as a pro se attorney[.] . . . If you wish to go forward, I will let you file a motion to withdraw on your own, . . . [but] I can’t give you an attorney to pursue a course of action that they do not believe, in their own professional judgment and candor to the Court, they can pursue. . . . You’re aware of the charges against you and aware of the . . . issue with respect to sentencing. . . . You’re familiar with the case and the charges . . . to which you pled guilty. . . . And you understand that you’ll be representing yourself with respect to this matter on the issue of sentencing if the Court does not grant your motion to withdraw a change of plea? . . . There will be certain limitations in terms of the procedure at sentencing. There are the sentencing guidelines that will be used and utilized in this matter. You’re not completely familiar with those. You understand that? ROA, Vol. 3 at 25, 45, 48-49, 59. With some hesitation, Mr. Vigil indicated he understood the consequences of waiving this right and filed the motion. The court appointed Mr. Carter to act as standby counsel. C. April 26, 2013 Hearing and Subsequent Proceedings Shortly thereafter, on April 26, 2013, the district court held a hearing on Mr. Vigil’s pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. When Mr. Vigil requested that Mr. Carter “speak and take over as far as the proceedings go forward as far as questioning[,]” Mr. Carter agreed. Id. at 77. After one witness was examined, Mr. Vigil asked for a continuance because he had been unable to secure all of his witnesses. The court granted the continuance. -5- Before the hearing resumed, Mr. Vigil retained private counsel, Ronald Podboy. On May 14, 2013, the hearing continued with Mr. Podboy representing Mr. Vigil. Mr. Podboy represented Mr. Vigil for the remainder of the hearing and through sentencing.3 On November 1, 2013, the district court denied Mr. Vigil’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. On January 21, 2014, the court sentenced Mr. Vigil to 168 months in prison and five years of supervised release. He timely appealed, arguing the court violated his right to counsel.