District court did not violate pro se defendant’s right to counsel by permitting attorney “cocounsel” to withdraw

RIGHT TO COUNSEL United States v. Chavis, No. 05-6001, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Aug. 29, 2006)(W.D. Oklahoma). Appeal of convictions and sentence for mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. HELD: Where defendant indicated to district court that he wanted to proceed to pro se but with court-appointed “cocounsel,” court did not violate defendant’s right to counsel by allowing “cocounsel” to withdraw and then appointing another attorney as “standby counsel.” Defendant clearly requested right to represent himself and understood that court appointed attorney was acting as “cocounsel” in case, not “lead counsel.” Read the opinion here.