United States v. Torres-Perez , 110 F. App'x 395 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 1, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50062
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE TORRES-PEREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(EP-03-CR-854-2-PRM )
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Jose Torres-Perez (Torres) appeals his
conviction and sentence for conspiracy to import marihuana,
importation of marihuana, conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute marihuana, and possession with intent to distribute
marihuana. Torres argues that the evidence is insufficient to
support his conviction and that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion to substitute counsel.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Torres contends that his written and oral statements regarding
the offenses are ambiguous and uncorroborated. The evidence shows,
however, that Torres was calm when he was interviewed and that he
stated that he was to be paid to assist his brother-in-law in
transporting marihuana to New Mexico. Customs officials had
stopped Torres and his brother-in-law at the Paso del Norte port of
entry in El Paso, Texas, after a canine alerted to their vehicle.
A total of 46.5 pounds of marihuana wrapped in bundles was found
hidden in the vehicle. Torres’s confession is sufficiently
corroborated, and the evidence is sufficient to sustain his
conviction on all four counts. See United States v. DeVille, 278
F.3d 500, 506-07 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Delgado, 256
F.3d 264, 273-74 (5th Cir. 2001).
On the day that jury selection was scheduled to commence,
Torres sought court permission for his court-appointed attorney to
withdraw and for the substitution of retained counsel. Although
Torres originally contended that retained counsel was ready to
proceed to trial, the record reflects that retained counsel sought
a continuance. Torres asserts that he was deprived of his Sixth
Amendment right to counsel because his court-appointed counsel was
inadequately prepared for trial. Torres does not identify any
shortcomings with respect to his representation at trial.
Although it denied the motion for substitution of counsel and
for a continuance, the court stated that it would allow retained
counsel to participate in the proceedings. The court determined
2
that Torres had had sufficient time to request new counsel earlier
if he had perceived a problem with his counsel’s representation;
that court-appointed counsel was competent to act as Torres’s
attorney; and that any delay would inconvenience the jurors called
to service. Under these circumstances, Torres has not shown that
the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to
substitute counsel. See United States v. Silva, 611 F.2d 78, 79
(5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Young, 482 F.2d 993, 995-96 (5th
Cir. 1973).
AFFIRMED.
3