Reported / Citable
Background
Rodney Herbert Riggs Jr. was arrested in Riverside County in August 2022 after a confrontation with his current or recent girlfriend, Jane Doe, and a man she had been dating. According to the prosecution evidence, Riggs fired multiple shots at the couple as they rode a four-wheeled motor bike past her family’s home, then chased Jane into the home, hit her, threatened her father and brother with a gun, and ultimately dragged her into the backyard where he struck her with his hand and a shovel. A sheriff’s helicopter recorded much of the backyard confrontation. Deputies arrested Riggs and found methamphetamine in his shoe.
A jury convicted Riggs of two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, infliction of traumatic injury on a person with whom he had a current or previous dating relationship, criminal threats, possession of a firearm with a prior felony conviction, and possession of a controlled substance, with firearm use enhancements. The trial court sentenced him to 25 years and four months in state prison.
On appeal, Riggs raised three claims. He argued there was insufficient evidence to support the knowledge or intent element of the assault with a semiautomatic firearm counts, that the trial court should have given accident and mistake-of-law instructions, and, in the published portion of the opinion, that he was deprived of his right to counsel because his trial attorney was administratively suspended from the State Bar at one point during trial for purportedly failing to comply with the Client Trust Account Protection Program (CTAPP) reporting requirements.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, in a partially published opinion, affirmed the judgment. In the unpublished portions, the court rejected the sufficiency of the evidence challenge and the instructional claims. On the published issue, the court held that Riggs failed to establish that his counsel’s temporary administrative suspension deprived him of constitutionally effective assistance of counsel.
The court relied principally on People v. Ngo and People v. Johnson, which together draw a critical distinction between an attorney who has resigned from the bar with disciplinary charges pending and one who is administratively suspended for noncompliance with a procedural rule. A resignation while charges are pending effectively ends the lawyer’s status as a member of the bar and creates a per se denial of the right to counsel. An administrative suspension based on compliance with a court rule, by contrast, is qualitatively different and does not by itself establish incompetence or a constitutional violation.
Under that framework, Riggs’s lawyer’s brief CTAPP-related suspension did not amount to a structural denial of counsel. The lawyer had not resigned and faced no disciplinary charges going to moral turpitude or competence. Riggs presented no additional facts about how the suspension affected his lawyer’s actual performance, such as missed deadlines, errors in trial strategy, or inability to communicate with him. Without that showing, Riggs could not satisfy either the deficient performance prong or the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington.
Key Takeaways
- An attorney’s temporary administrative suspension for noncompliance with a court reporting rule does not automatically deprive a criminal defendant of effective assistance of counsel.
- The decisive distinction in California law is between resignations from the bar with charges pending (which create a per se constitutional violation) and administrative suspensions (which require additional showings of deficient performance).
- Defendants seeking to overturn a conviction based on an attorney’s suspension must point to specific conduct or omissions that affected the trial.
- The California Client Trust Account Protection Program (CTAPP) reporting requirements can result in administrative suspensions that do not, by themselves, undermine the constitutional adequacy of representation.
- Trial courts and counsel should remain alert to the timing and nature of any suspension and consider continuance or substitution requests to avoid practical disruptions to the defense.
Why It Matters
This published opinion provides important guidance to criminal defense counsel and prosecutors when defense lawyers face administrative suspension during a trial. Counsel facing a CTAPP or other procedural suspension should promptly notify the court and clients and consider whether continuance or substitution is appropriate, but a brief suspension does not automatically poison the trial.
For defendants and their appellate counsel, the case sets a clear bar: simply pointing to a suspension is not enough. The appellate record must establish how the lawyer’s actual performance fell below professional norms during the period of suspension and how that performance prejudiced the defense. Without such evidence, the constitutional claim will fail.