United States v. Victor Vargas-Martinez, United States of America v. Jose Arroyo-Ayala

Good Law
569 F.2d 1102·1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12534
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 21, 197877-1392 and 77-1403California831 words

Opinion

Opinion

Appellants Vargas-Martinez and Arroyo-Ayala seek to reverse convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. Arroyo-Ayala also appeals from a conviction of conspiracy to import a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 , 960 and 963.

Arroyo-Ayala asserts constitutional error based on deprivation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by removal of his retained counsel by the trial court. Substitution of his counsel of choice, Robert Dome, was ordered due to a conflict of interest arising out of the representation of Arroyo-Ayala and Juana Maldonado, a co-defendant who had agreed to become a prosecution witness. Although Juana Maldonado had different counsel during the district court proceedings, Dome was her counsel of record in two state criminal proceedings and, while Arroyo-Ayala waived any conflict of interest arising out of this situation, Maldonado did not.

The district court was correct in ordering substitution of counsel for Arroyo-Ayala on the basis that the dual representation created an inescapable conflict of interest which had not been waived by both co-defendants.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.