U.S. v. HOGAN, 4:12-cr-00170-SWW-1. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20140321881
Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2014
Summary: ORDER SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, District Judge. The two pro se motions [doc.#'s 126, 127] of defendant Christopher Arnold Hogan to dismiss the indictment are hereby denied as Mr. Hogan is represented by appointed counsel and this Court normally does not consider pro se motions from defendants who are represented by counsel. 1 FootNotes 1. In his first motion to dismiss, Mr. Hogan states he is at his "wits end" as he has tried to fire his attorney through this Court "twice for incompetence in
Summary: ORDER SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, District Judge. The two pro se motions [doc.#'s 126, 127] of defendant Christopher Arnold Hogan to dismiss the indictment are hereby denied as Mr. Hogan is represented by appointed counsel and this Court normally does not consider pro se motions from defendants who are represented by counsel. 1 FootNotes 1. In his first motion to dismiss, Mr. Hogan states he is at his "wits end" as he has tried to fire his attorney through this Court "twice for incompetence in n..
More
ORDER
SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, District Judge.
The two pro se motions [doc.#'s 126, 127] of defendant Christopher Arnold Hogan to dismiss the indictment are hereby denied as Mr. Hogan is represented by appointed counsel and this Court normally does not consider pro se motions from defendants who are represented by counsel.1
FootNotes
1. In his first motion to dismiss, Mr. Hogan states he is at his "wits end" as he has tried to fire his attorney through this Court "twice for incompetence in not filing the present motion, plus a speedy trial motion, and many more but the District Court refuses to discharge him and reappoint a new counsel that won't just see me 2 times in 2 years, that will file my motions, that will answer my mail." The Court reiterates, as stated in its February 24th order [doc.#117] denying Mr. Hogan's motion to terminate the services of appointed counsel, that Mr. Hogan is not entitled to appointed counsel of his choice and the Court does not discern anything at this time that would indicate that appointed counsel does not have Mr. Hogan's "best interest at heart" or that appointed counsel's representation is outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. Of course, Mr. Hogan is not precluded from retaining private counsel of his own choosing.
Source: Leagle
