United States v. Richard Brown

United States v. Rivera-Corona, 618 F.3d 976 (9th Cir.2010), held that an indigent criminal defendant need not establish a conflict with his attorney amounting to the constructive denial of counsel as a prerequisite to substituting appointed counsel for his retained attorney. The district court in this case, like the parties, appears to have been unaware of Rivera-Corona , and instead applied the conflict requirement applicable to substitutions of appointed counsel for appointed counsel. We now reiterate Riverar-Corona’s intertwined rules: (1) A defendant enjoys a right to discharge his retained counsel for any reason “unless a contrary result is compelled by ‘purposes inherent in the fair, efficient and orderly administration of justice,’ ” Rivera-Corona, 618 F.3d at 979 (quoting United States v. Ensign, 491 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir.2007)), and (2) if the court allows a defendant to discharge his retained counsel, and the defendant is financially qualified, the court must appoint new counsel for him under the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3O06A. Because no sufficient reason justified the district court’s denial of Richard Carl Brown’s right to discharge his…