Can a state trial court deny a criminal defendant's request for substitution counsel without any reasonable inquiry into trial counsel's performance, and then proceed with a jury trial without the defendant being present?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The trial court denied petitioner's multiple requests for substitution counsel based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. There was a complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship, and petitioner refused to proceed with a jury trial with the court-appointed counsel assigned to him because trial counsel did nothing to assist petitioner in his defense. The trial court conducted a perfunctory inquiry on whether trial counsel was effective and simply declared that counsel was effective. The trial court made no express findings, and then proceeded to have a jury trial without petitioner present. Petitioner received over 75 years in prison. The questions presented are: l. Can a state trial court deny a criminal defendant's request for substitution counsel without any reasonable inquiry into trial counsel's performance, and then proceed with a jury trial without the defendant being present? 2. In denying a pretrial motion for substitution counsel, should a trial court be required to make reasoned findings of fact on the record to ascertain effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution? 3. When the Attorney-Client Relationship completely breaks down to the point where a criminal defendant refuses to participate in the jury trial process, at what time and in what manner should the trial court take direct intervention to protect the integrity of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of assistance of counsel? nn i 2 OPINIONS BELOW On September 6, 2019, petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Washington County Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in State v. Alvaro Noe Mendoza-Valencia, Case Nos. 18CR42383; | 18CR71355. On May 18, 2022, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner’s conviction and | sentence without opinion. See State v. Alvaro Noe Mendoza-Valencia, CAA172421; A172422. On | September 1, 2022, the Oregon Supreme Court denied review of petitioner’s direct appeal without | | opinion. See State v. Alvaro Noe Mendoza-Valencia, 8069658. JURISDICTION | | Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1257 to review by writ of certiorari a : final judgment rendered by the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had. : CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS This case involves the Effective Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under the same. These constitutional provisions provide: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S.Const.Amend. VI “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are | citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S.Const.Amend. XIV | | 3 PROCCEDINGS BELOW | On September 6, 2019, petitioner was charged in Washington County, Oregon, of 25-counts of | enumerated sex offenses based on verbal allegations made several years prior to his arrest. Before trial, : petitioner motioned the trial court for substitution counsel. The trial court denied the motion, and forced petitioner to proceed with the jury trial. Petitioner refused to proceed with a jury trial with appointed counsel. Petitioner was convicted