JAYMZ THOMAS QUINTANA v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Jaymz Thomas Quintana appeals from two judgments of conviction, entered pursuant to no contest pleas. In both cases, DC-CR-23-42 and DC-CR-25-39, Quintana was convicted of one count of possession of a schedule I or II controlled substance less than 14 grams, third or subsequent offense. Fourth Judicial District Court, Elko County; Hon. Mason E. Simons, Judge.

First, Quintana argues the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for substitute counsel and by not adequately inquiring into the alleged conflict between Quintana and counsel. At sentencing, Quintana requested that his current counsel be removed and that counsel who was appointed on a separate criminal case be appointed to represent him in the instant matters. Quintana did not allege there was a conflict of interest between him and current counsel.

A denial of a motion for the substitution of counsel is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Young v. State, 120 Nev. 963, 968, 102 P.3d 572, 576 (2004). “Absent a showing of adequate cause, a defendant is not entitled to reject his court-appointed counsel and request substitution of other counsel at public expense.” Id. A district court must consider three factors when considering whether to appoint substitute counsel: “(1) the extent of the conflict; (2) the adequacy of the inquiry; and (3) the timeliness of the motion.” Id. (quoting United States v. Moore, 159 F.3d 1154, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 1998)).

Here, Quintana failed to demonstrate the district court did not adequately inquire into the alleged conflict between him and counsel. Quintana did not allege there was any conflict between him and current counsel when he made the request for substitute counsel. Thus, he failed to demonstrate the district court should have inquired further. Moreover, Quintana waited until the third scheduled sentencing hearing to make the request, even though the other counsel had represented him in the separate criminal case since before the first scheduled sentencing hearing in the instant matters. Thus, the request was not timely. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Quintana's request for substitute counsel.¹

Second, Quintana argues the district court abused its discretion by not continuing the sentencing hearing. Quintana did not request a continuance of the sentencing hearing, and Quintana fails to demonstrate that the district court was required to sua sponte grant a continuance where no continuance was requested. The district court had previously continued the sentencing hearing twice and explained it would not grant any further continuances. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by not sua sponte continuing the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgments of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   At the sentencing hearing, Quintana also stated he would try to pay for substitute counsel rather than have counsel appointed. However, Quintana's request was still untimely, and he failed to demonstrate why he could not have made this request earlier.