United States v. Leonel Marin-Torres , 671 F. App'x 468 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 28 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30044
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00038-HZ-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LEONEL MARIN-TORRES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 9, 2016**
Portland, Oregon
Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Leonel Marin-Torres appeals his conviction for assault with a dangerous
weapon with intent to do bodily harm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3) and
7(3) and possession of prison contraband in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1791(a)(2),
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(b)(3), (d)(1)(B) and 7(3). Marin-Torres contends he was effectively denied his
right to represent himself in violation of the Sixth Amendment, see Faretta v.
California, 422 U.S. 806, 821 (1975), because the district court denied him
adequate access to discovery. Marin-Torres, whose is Spanish speaking, primarily
contests the district court’s denial of his request to have a complete set of translated
discovery and the court’s entry of a protective order prohibiting him from retaining
discovery materials in his cell. “We review de novo whether there has been a
violation of . . . the Sixth Amendment right to make a defense[,]” United States v.
Stever, 603 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
Marin-Torres’ right to self-representation under Faretta necessarily includes
the right to prepare a defense. See Milton v. Morris, 767 F.2d 1443, 1446 (9th Cir.
1985). This right includes “time to prepare and some access to materials and
witnesses” but “is not unlimited.” Id. “Security considerations and avoidance of
abuse by opportunistic or vacillating defendants may require special adjustments.”
Id.
Here, the district court appointed standby counsel, bilingual interpreters and
investigators to assist Marin-Torres with his review of discovery materials. The
district court also allowed Marin-Torres to have key documents translated into
Spanish. Prisoner and officer safety required restricting Marin-Torres’ ability to
2
retain and review materials outside of the presence of his defense team. These
“special adjustments” were based on legitimate security concerns.
Marin-Torres responded to these accommodations by repeatedly obstructing
his defense team’s efforts to review discovery with him, electing to protest his
unrequited demands rather than work within the reasonable confines set by the
district court. To the extent Marin-Torres was not prepared to present a defense at
trial, it was the result of his own choices. We cannot fault the district judge, who
exhibited commendable patience in attempting to accommodate Marin-Torres’
requests and his right to present a defense.
AFFIRMED.
3