No. 21-5686
Tobias Soto-Melchor v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: controlling-precedent counsel-of-choice ineffective-assistance ninth-circuit ninth-circuit-rule right-to-counsel right-to-counsel-of-choice right-to-effective-assistance-of-counsel sixth-amendment trial-delay
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities
SocialSecurity Securities
Latest Conference:
2021-10-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Proper-standard-for-substituting-retained-counsel
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW What is the proper standard for evaluating a defendant’s request to exercise his or her Sixth Amendment right to substitute retained counsel of choice, when the substitution may delay the trial? Otherwise said, does the Ninth Circuit’s outlier rule — which collapses the distinction between the right to counsel of choice and the right to effective assistance of counsel — conflict with this Court’s controlling precedent? --prefix-
Docket Entries
2021-10-12
Petition DENIED.
2021-09-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021.
2021-09-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2021-09-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 18, 2021)
Attorneys
Tobias Soto-Melchor
Devin Jai Burstein — Warren & Burstein, Petitioner
Devin Jai Burstein — Warren & Burstein, Petitioner
United States of America
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent