Government's Response to Motion to Withdraw — United States v. Joff Stenn Wroy Philossaint (Document 225)

Summary

Government's Response to Motion to Withdraw, entered March 7, 2023, in United States of America v. Joff Stenn Wroy Philossaint, Case No. 22-80144-CR-Smith/Maynard(s)(s), Southern District of Florida. It responds to defense counsel Ian Goldstein's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (D.E. 211), which cites irreconcilable differences, and states that Goldstein confirmed Philossaint has not expressed a desire for new counsel. The government recommends that the Court hold a hearing with Philossaint present and first determine whether he wishes to discharge Goldstein and whether he is indigent. It is signed s/ Marc Osborne, Assistant United States Attorney.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 1 of 3




                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                           CASE NO. 22-80144-CR-Smith/Maynard(s)(s)



   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   v.

   JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT,

          Defendant.


                GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW

        The United States respectfully responds to defendant Joff Stenn Wroy Philossaint’s Motion

 to Withdraw as Counsel (D.E. 211).

        Philossaint was indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to launder money,

 and procuring naturalization contrary to law. D.E. 32, 58, 107. He pled guilty to conspiracy to

 commit wire fraud and conspiracy to launder money. D.E. 93. He was found guilty at trial of

 procuring naturalization contrary to law. D.E. 198. He has been represented throughout the case by

 Ian Goldstein, whom he retained.

        In his motion to withdraw, Goldstein represents that, “since the jury’s verdict, there have

 arisen irreconcilable differences between the undersigned counsel and the defendant, which have

 resulted in counsel’s inability to provide continued effective counsel to Mr. Philossaint.” D.E. 211

 at ¶ 4. He further states that Philossaint cannot afford new counsel, and therefore requests

 appointment of counsel. D.E. 211 at ¶ 6.
Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 2 of 3




         If Philossaint wants to discharge his retained counsel, the Sixth Amendment guarantees him

 the right to do so, regardless of whether there are irreconcilable differences between Philossaint and

 Goldstein. See United States v. Jimenez-Antunez, 820 F.3d 1267, 1271 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Because a

 defendant who moves to dismiss his retained counsel maintains the right to counsel of choice, a

 district court cannot require the defendant to show good cause.”) And Philossaint has the right to

 discharge retained counsel even if Philossaint would then need appointment of counsel. See id. (“A

 defendant exercises the right to counsel of choice when he moves to dismiss retained counsel,

 regardless of the type of counsel he wishes to engage afterward. . . . .. . . . [A] defendant may discharge

 his retained counsel without regard to whether he will later request appointed counsel.”). However,

 Goldstein’s motion does not state that Philossaint wants Goldstein replaced, only that, in

 Goldstein’s opinion, irreconcilable differences have arisen between them. On Tuesday, March 7,

 2023, the undersigned spoke with Goldstein. Goldstein confirmed that Philossaint has not

 expressed a desire for new counsel, but that Goldstein believes that there are irreconcilable

 differences between himself and Philossaint.

         Given this law and these facts, the government recommends that the Court proceed as

 follows: The Court should hold a hearing with Philossaint present. At the hearing, the Court should

 first determine whether Philossaint wishes to discharge Goldstein. If so, the Court should determine

 whether Philossaint is indigent. If Philossaint wishes to discharge Goldstein and is indigent, the

 Court should grant Goldstein’s motion to withdraw and should appoint counsel for Philossaint. * If

 Philossaint wishes to discharge Goldstein but is not indigent, the Court should still allow Philossaint



         *
             The Federal Public Defender represented codefendant Breanna Monique Gayle.
                                                   2
Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 3 of 3




 to exercise his right to discharge Goldstein. However, in that circumstance, the government

 recommends that the Court wait until new counsel has filed a notice of appearance before allowing

 Goldstein to withdraw. Otherwise, Philossaint might be left without representation. On the other

 hand, if Philossaint wants to continue with Goldstein as his attorney, the Court should determine

 whether there are indeed irreconcilable differences between Goldstein and Philossaint, such that

 Goldstein cannot provide effective assistance of counsel. If so, the Court should grant Goldstein’s

 motion to withdraw. In that case, the Court should again determine whether Philossaint is indigent.

 If he is, the Court should counsel for him. However, if the Court finds that Goldstein is capable of

 providing effective assistance and that Philossaint wants him to do so, the Court should deny

 Goldstein’s motion to withdraw.

        WHEREFORE, the government recommends the Court hold a hearing as described above.

                                               Respectfully submitted,

                                               MARKENZY LAPOINTE
                                               UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

                                         By:   s/ Marc Osborne
                                               Assistant United States Attorney
                                               Court ID# A5500796
                                               500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400
                                               West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
                                               Tel: (561) 209-1014
                                               marc.osborne@usdoj.gov




                                                  3


File and source

File

225.pdf

Size

66,343 bytes

SHA-256

e11dd627f6bd1a071a3031f52b68fab509cd4d1b59c4cc68735ee085b65ea5ea

Our copy

225.pdf

Original

No public link identified.