U.S. v. Graves, 1:16-po-0053-SKO. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180215944
Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE COUNSEL WITHDRAWAL LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . The Court has received and reviewed the Motion for Reconsideration. There is neither new law nor new fact to justify its filing. In the Order Denying the original motion without prejudice, the Court gave counsel and the Defendant an opportunity to provide a sealed statement that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel would be explored and/or sought. The opportunity remains untouche
Summary: ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE COUNSEL WITHDRAWAL LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . The Court has received and reviewed the Motion for Reconsideration. There is neither new law nor new fact to justify its filing. In the Order Denying the original motion without prejudice, the Court gave counsel and the Defendant an opportunity to provide a sealed statement that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel would be explored and/or sought. The opportunity remains untouched..
More
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE COUNSEL WITHDRAWAL
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
The Court has received and reviewed the Motion for Reconsideration. There is neither new law nor new fact to justify its filing. In the Order Denying the original motion without prejudice, the Court gave counsel and the Defendant an opportunity to provide a sealed statement that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel would be explored and/or sought. The opportunity remains untouched. If the argument currently presented were sufficient, then no appeal could ever be handled by the same attorney who handled the case through conviction and sentencing. That is not the law. In its current form and substance, the motion is DENIED, again without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
