United States v. Tony Richard Casanova

We affirm appellant’s conviction of aiding and abetting the robbery of a savings and loan association.

Appellant asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney (1) “represented to the court prior to the commencement of trial that the attorney-client relationship had completely broken down, but did not make a record of the factual bases supporting this assertion”; (2) “did not renew a motion to continue or be relieved as counsel after being apprised in open court ... of a defense based on the involuntariness of defendant’s acts”; and (3) “failed to present any defense whatsoever although apprised of a possible defense based on the involuntariness of defendant’s acts and the availability of one or more witnesses to testify thereto.”

The record does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel under the standards announced in Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1978) (en banc). As to the first claim, trial counsel appeared to be fully familiar with the facts and applicable law; there is nothing in the record to support the suggestion that counsel’s failure to make a more specific factual showing in support of his assertion that communication…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

By ruling that the motion was untimely, the trial judge utterly failed to exercise his discretion as to whether there was a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship which required the granting of appellant’s motion for a substitution to protect appellant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel.

*302 My esteemed colleagues have concluded that “there is nothing in the record to support the suggestion that counsel’s failure to make a more specific factual showing in support of his assertion that communication between himself and his client had broken down was based upon anything other than an absence of any basis for such a showing.” Ante at 1. The majority is quite correct in noting that the record is silent as to the facts which support the claim of a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. However, the reason advanced by the majority for the failure to present any evidence in support of the contention that there was a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is sheer speculation. The majority has failed to point out that the reason the record is silent is that the trial court refused to grant appellant’s written…

642 F.2d 300 8 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 131 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Richard CASANOVA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 79-1789. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 6, 1980. Decided April 16, 1981. John W. Tulacz, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Deanne H. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, ALARCON, Circuit Judge, and CLAIBORNE, * District Judge. PER CURIAM: 1 We affirm appellant's conviction of aiding and abetting the robbery of a savings and loan association. 2 Appellant asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney (1) "represented to the court prior to the commencement of trial that the attorney-client relationship had completely broken down, but did not make a record of the factual bases supporting this assertion"; (2) "did not renew a motion to continue or be relieved as counsel after being apprised in open court ... of a defense based on the involuntariness of defendant's acts"; and (3) "failed to present any defense whatsoever although…