U.S. v. Volpentesta

In prosecution on real estate and tax fraud charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s 4th request for appointment of new counsel, even though defendant claimed that his current counsel had not been diligent in representing him. While record showed that defendant and his two appointed counsel expressed disagreement as to trial strategy, record did not demonstrate total breakdown in communication between attorney and client so as to warrant appointment of new counsel. Moreover, record established that defendant voluntarily waived his right to counsel on eve of scheduled trial, and defendant could not use fact that Dist. Ct. had denied prior requests for appointment of new counsel to demonstrate that his waiver was involuntary, especially where defendant’s counsel had provided competent representation. Dist. Ct. also did not err in denying defendant’s request for 90-day continuance of trial, even though he explained that he needed extra time to prepare for trial due to his recent waiver of his appointed counsel, since defendant had previously received three-week extension of trial, and record showed that his appointed counsel had been ready to proceed to trial prior to defendant’s dismissal of his appointed counsel.