Filed: Mar. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2016
Summary: ORDER BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS , District Judge . A criminal defendant has the right to be represented by counsel, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 344 (1963), or to represent himself, see Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 807 (1975). However, a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to hybrid representation, i.e. both through counsel and self-representation or pro se. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 183 (1984); see also United States v. Vampire N
Summary: ORDER BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS , District Judge . A criminal defendant has the right to be represented by counsel, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 344 (1963), or to represent himself, see Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 807 (1975). However, a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to hybrid representation, i.e. both through counsel and self-representation or pro se. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 183 (1984); see also United States v. Vampire Na..
More
ORDER
BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, District Judge.
A criminal defendant has the right to be represented by counsel, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963), or to represent himself, see Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807 (1975). However, a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to hybrid representation, i.e. both through counsel and self-representation or pro se. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984); see also United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, 206 n.17 (3rd Cir. 2006) (holding a district court has the authority to issue limitations on pro se filings submitted while the party is represented by counsel). Therefore, as a general rule, a defendant represented by counsel is not entitled to have his pro se motions considered by the court.
Here, Defendant Sherwin Antwain Carter ("Defendant") has filed two pro se motions (ECF Nos. 391; 400). Defendant, however, is currently represented by a court-appointed attorney. Therefore, the Court finds that he is attempting to proceed in a hybrid fashion. As the right of self-representation does not include the right to hybrid representation, the court DENIES Defendant's pro se motions (ECF Nos. 391; 400). Defendant should seek relief from this Court through his court-appointed attorney.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
