Filed: Dec. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2014
Summary: OPINION and ORDER SUSAN P. WATTERS, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Kristofer Wright's Motion for Discovery. (Doc. 23). Although the Court appointed counsel for him, Wright filed this motion pro se. Wright previously submitted a pro se Motion to Suppress. (Doc. 20). As the Court explained in its Order denying that motion (Doc. 21), "It is settled law that a defendant has the right to represent himself in a criminal trial and that he has the right to the assistance of counsel." U
Summary: OPINION and ORDER SUSAN P. WATTERS, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Kristofer Wright's Motion for Discovery. (Doc. 23). Although the Court appointed counsel for him, Wright filed this motion pro se. Wright previously submitted a pro se Motion to Suppress. (Doc. 20). As the Court explained in its Order denying that motion (Doc. 21), "It is settled law that a defendant has the right to represent himself in a criminal trial and that he has the right to the assistance of counsel." Un..
More
OPINION and ORDER
SUSAN P. WATTERS, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Kristofer Wright's Motion for Discovery. (Doc. 23). Although the Court appointed counsel for him, Wright filed this motion pro se. Wright previously submitted a pro se Motion to Suppress. (Doc. 20). As the Court explained in its Order denying that motion (Doc. 21), "It is settled law that a defendant has the right to represent himself in a criminal trial and that he has the right to the assistance of counsel." United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir.1978) (citations omitted). "A criminal defendant does not have an absolute right to both self-representation and the assistance of counsel," however. United States v. Bergman, 813 F.2d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original). In other words, "the right to counsel and the right to proceed prose exist in the alternative." United States v. LaChance, 817 F.2d 1491, 1498 (11th Cir.1987); see also Locks v. Sumner, 703 F.2d 403, 407-08 (9th Cir.1983). Although a court may grant permission for hybrid representation, the decision to do so "rests in the sound discretion of the trial court." Bergman, 813 F.3d at 1030.
By filing his motion pro se, Wright engages in hybrid representation without first seeking the Court's permission. Under such circumstances, "[a] district court has no obligation to entertain prose motions filed by a represented party." Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2001). This Court declines to consider Wright's Motion for Discovery. See, e.g., id. at 685 (noting that the district court did not err when it denied a represented defendant's prose motion without considering its contents); see also United States v. Tracy, 989 F.2d 1279, 1285 (1st Cir.1993) ("A district court enjoys wide latitude in managing its docket and can require represented parties to present motions through counsel. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider [the defendant's] unsigned, pro se motions.").
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Wright's Motion for Discovery (Doc. 23) is DENIED in its entirety. This Court will not consider any motions filed by Wright while he is represented by counsel.
