U.S. v. TAYLOR, 16-091. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20160817b09
Visitors: 19
Filed: Aug. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS IVAN L.R. LEMELLE , Senior District Judge . Defendant Taylor requests appointment of new counsel, alleging dissatisfaction with her current counsel. Record Document Number 86. That dissatisfaction arises from her belief that counsel was ill-prepared and/or gave bad advice during a recent hearing before us. To extent Ms. Taylor's request is a motion for new counsel that motion is DENIED. Ms. Taylor's basis for this request is misplaced and incorrect. In addition to dem
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS IVAN L.R. LEMELLE , Senior District Judge . Defendant Taylor requests appointment of new counsel, alleging dissatisfaction with her current counsel. Record Document Number 86. That dissatisfaction arises from her belief that counsel was ill-prepared and/or gave bad advice during a recent hearing before us. To extent Ms. Taylor's request is a motion for new counsel that motion is DENIED. Ms. Taylor's basis for this request is misplaced and incorrect. In addition to demo..
More
ORDER AND REASONS
IVAN L.R. LEMELLE, Senior District Judge.
Defendant Taylor requests appointment of new counsel, alleging dissatisfaction with her current counsel. Record Document Number 86. That dissatisfaction arises from her belief that counsel was ill-prepared and/or gave bad advice during a recent hearing before us.
To extent Ms. Taylor's request is a motion for new counsel that motion is DENIED.
Ms. Taylor's basis for this request is misplaced and incorrect. In addition to demonstrating effective professional service during that hearing, her attorney also submitted a very well-written motion on Taylor's behalf that caused this Court to reconsider its position on the pretrial release condition relative to mental health information. While that consideration remains intact, the motion and oral argument provided us an opportunity to clarify the process for release of information that defendant agreed with at the 5A initial appearance hearing and the subject hearing. Her attorney's work in that regards proved beneficial to Ms. Taylor and this Court. For that Ms. Taylor should be grateful.
Accordingly, the request for new appointed counsel is dismissed as unfounded.1
FootNotes
1. Mere dissatisfaction with and erroneous conclusions with current counsel's conduct does not warrant discharge of counsel found to be competent. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668; 104 S.Ct. 2052; 80 L. Ed. 2d 674; (1984).
Source: Leagle
