United States v. Gaspar Torres-Hernandez

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10111
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00968-JAT-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GASPAR TORRES HERNANDEZ, AKA
Ramon Jose Sanchez-Valenzuela,
Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10205
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:09-cr-02584-JAT-1
v.
GASPAR TORRES HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 16, 2016
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Gaspar Torres Hernandez appeals his convictions and
sentences for the offense of Reentry of Removed Aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §
1326(a), (b)(1), and for violating a previously-imposed condition of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Torres Hernandez contends that the district court violated his Sixth
Amendment right by denying his requests for new counsel. “[F]orcing a defendant
to go to trial with an attorney with whom he has an irreconcilable conflict amounts
to constructive denial of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel,” which occurs
“where there is a complete breakdown in communication between the attorney and
client, and the breakdown prevents effective assistance of counsel.” Stenson v.
Lambert, 504 F.3d 873, 886 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Brown v. Craven, 424 F.2d
1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 1970); then citing Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1026 (9th
Cir. 2000) (en banc)). When assessing whether there was a Sixth Amendment
violation, we consider (1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) the adequacy of the
district court’s inquiry; and (3) the extent of the conflict. United States v. Nguyen,
262 F.3d 998, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
2
Here, the government agrees Torres Hernandez should have been granted
new counsel and concedes that his convictions and sentences should be vacated.
Torres Hernandez and his attorney repeatedly requested that new counsel be
assigned before trial. They made it clear that the relationship lacked trust and
communication. Torres Hernandez’s attorney even admitted that he was not
concentrating on his client’s trial because of the breakdown in the attorney-client
relationship. In sum, Torres Hernandez was left to face trial with a lawyer with
whom he was not satisfied, would not cooperate, and would not communicate. See
Nguyen, 262 F.3d at 1003–04. The district court’s denial of Torres Hernandez’s
request for a new lawyer violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The
convictions and sentences are therefore vacated.
We decline to reach Torres Hernandez’s other challenges to his sentence.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3