United States v. Smith

MEMORANDUM **

James Virl Smith appeals his conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and assigns error to the district court’s denial of his motion to substitute counsel and the denial of his request for a continuance of trial due to the government’s late disclosure of surveillance photographs. We *422 have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We first conclude that, under the factors set out in United States v. Ono, 997 F.2d 647, 650 (9th Cir.1993), the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s motion to substitute counsel. Smith’s motion was untimely because it was made on the first day of trial and would have required yet another continuance. The district court sufficiently questioned Smith and his attorney about the nature of Smith’s complaint; the inquiry provided a sufficient basis for reaching an informed decision concerning the substitution motion. Finally, although there may have been a personality conflict, Smith and his attorney did not suffer a total breakdown in communication that prevented the presentation of an adequate defense.

We next consider Smith’s claim that he was denied the right to a fair trial because the district…