Unpublished Disposition, 852 F.2d 1290 (9th Cir. 1988)Annotate this Case
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Paul E.M. COLLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 1988.* Decided July 21, 1988.
Before NELSON, NOONAN and LEAVY, Circuit Judges:
Paul Collin appeals from a conviction for importing, possessing, and transferring counterfeit currency in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 472 and 473. Collin mailed $10,000 in one hundred dollar bills to his sister in California. Collin contends that there was insufficient evidence presented at his jury trial to prove that the currency was counterfeit.
Collin and the government stipulated that the currency consisted of "counterfeit bills of high quality." The stipulation alone conclusively proved that the bills were fake. See United States v. Rubio, 727 F.2d 786, 797 (9th Cir. 1983) ("once a matter is stipulated, it is conclusively proven"). At trial, Secret Service Agent Sandoval also testified that the bills were counterfeit. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the currency was counterfeit. See United States v. Whitten, 706 F.2d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 1983) (establishing standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100 (1984).
On May 9, 1988, Collin filed a letter with this court requesting new court-appointed appellate counsel. Collin's letter is treated as a motion for reconsideration of the order denying substitution of counsel.
A pro se litigant has a constitutional right to appointed legal representation on a direct criminal appeal. See Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 355-57 (1963). However, a pro se litigant does not have the right to court-appointed counsel of his choice. See Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1983).
Collin requests new appellate counsel because his appointed attorney (a) allegedly failed to communicate with him and (b) appealed on grounds not authorized by Collin. Collin does not request that he be allowed to appeal pro se nor does he challenge the competency of his appointed appellate counsel. Collin's desire for new appointed counsel appears to be based on the absence of a meaningful attorney client relationship. Such a desire does not constitute grounds for obtaining new appointed counsel. See Morris, 461 U.S. at 13-14. Accordingly, Collin's motion for reconsideration is denied.
The conviction is AFFIRMED.