In United States v. Velazquez, --- F.3d ---, No. 14-10311 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court vacated the defendant's conviction (resulting from a guilty plea) based on the district court's error in denying the defendant's requests to substitute counsel without
conducting an adequate inquiry.
In this context, the reversal is automatic. As the Court explained:
Where a criminal defendant has, with legitimate reason, completely lost trust in his attorney, and the trial court refuses to remove the attorney, the defendant is constructively denied counsel. A defendant need not show prejudice when the breakdown of a relationship between attorney and client from irreconcilable differences results in the complete denial of counsel. Because the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel applies at the plea-bargaining stage, constructive denial of counsel can occur at that phase just as it can at trial.
The opinion contains a thorough discussion of the law in this area, which focuses on a multi-factor test: “(1) the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry;
(2) the extent of the conflict between the defendant and
counsel; and (3) the timeliness of defendant’s motion.” The Court also declined to enforce the appeal waiver.
Judge Kozinski concurred "to note that the judges below acted
with what they believed to be Velazquez’s best interest at
heart. Even now, withdrawing from the plea may not be
wise, but it’s Velazquez’s choice to make. I hope and trust
that the government will accept her choice with generosity
and compassion."
