Williams v. United States
- Kimba Wood
- 1:19-cv-11402
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. United States, Judge Wood denied Curtis Williams’s request to replace appointed counsel in his conviction challenge.
Curtis Williams remained represented by Ezra Spilke, and the request for replacement counsel was denied.
What happened
In Williams v. United States, Curtis Williams asked the court to appoint a new lawyer for his challenge to his conviction under a federal law allowing certain convictions to be challenged after judgment.
Williams said his appointed lawyer, Ezra Spilke, had not paid enough attention to his case and had not pursued Williams’s argument about the relationship between a firearm charge and a drug-trafficking charge. Spilke had reviewed the case and concluded that no valid additional arguments could be added.
Judge Kimba M. Wood ruled that Spilke’s failure to pursue Williams’s preferred argument and the alleged lack of attention did not justify replacing him. The court denied Williams’s request for new counsel.
The detailed version
- Williams v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-11402
- Kimba Wood
- July 14, 2020
Background
Curtis Williams asked the court to replace his current appointed lawyer, Ezra Spilke. Williams claimed that Spilke had paid inadequate attention to his case. This was Williams’s second request to have Spilke replaced.
Williams had filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He argued that his conviction was invalid under Sessions v. Dimaya and United States v. Davis. The court appointed Spilke to help Williams decide whether to amend the petition. After reviewing the case, Spilke determined that no meritorious arguments could be added and declined to file an amended petition.
Williams said Spilke should have advanced his argument that the firearm discharge with which he was charged was unrelated to the narcotics conspiracy charge. The opinion states that Williams had pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense and had never challenged the validity of that guilty plea.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Spilke’s failure to advance Williams’s preferred argument, along with Williams’s allegation that Spilke had not paid enough attention to his attempts to discuss it, did not justify substituting counsel. The court also referred to its earlier finding that Spilke had diligently performed his duty by reviewing the case and determining that no further arguments were available.
Disposition
Judge Kimba M. Wood denied Williams’s request for substitution of counsel. The order did not decide the underlying § 2255 petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.