United States v. Willis, 19-00043-01. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20191204843
Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER S. MAURICE HICKS, JR. , Chief District Judge . Before the Court is a pro se filing entitled "Defendant['s] Opposition and Response to Government['s] Document #100" (Record Document 103) filed by the defendant, Christopher Donta Willis ("Willis"). Within this filing, Willis seeks reconsideration of the Court's order of November 12, 2019 (Record Document 96) denying his request for new counsel and a stay. "A criminal defendant does not have the right to `hybrid representat
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER S. MAURICE HICKS, JR. , Chief District Judge . Before the Court is a pro se filing entitled "Defendant['s] Opposition and Response to Government['s] Document #100" (Record Document 103) filed by the defendant, Christopher Donta Willis ("Willis"). Within this filing, Willis seeks reconsideration of the Court's order of November 12, 2019 (Record Document 96) denying his request for new counsel and a stay. "A criminal defendant does not have the right to `hybrid representati..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
S. MAURICE HICKS, JR., Chief District Judge.
Before the Court is a pro se filing entitled "Defendant['s] Opposition and Response to Government['s] Document #100" (Record Document 103) filed by the defendant, Christopher Donta Willis ("Willis"). Within this filing, Willis seeks reconsideration of the Court's order of November 12, 2019 (Record Document 96) denying his request for new counsel and a stay.
"A criminal defendant does not have the right to `hybrid representation.'" United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447, 449 & n. 1 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Lopez, 313 F.App'x 730, 731 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, Willis is represented by counsel and is admonished to communicate with the Court through his attorney only. This directive includes the filing of pro se motions and memoranda. Any such motions and memoranda will not be accepted by the Court in the future. The current motion for reconsideration before the Court is an unauthorized motion because Willis is represented by counsel. See Lopez, 313 F.App'x at 731. The motion (Record Document 103) is DENIED on this basis alone.
Furthermore, a review of Willis' motion does not change the Court's belief that no lawyer in good standing would make the arguments Willis wants his lawyer to make. Appointing another defense lawyer for William will not change that fact.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
