Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. CRITTINGTON, 3:11cr83. (2012)

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20120620c09 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 2012
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the court on defendant's pro se: (1) Affidavit to Dismiss (#37); (2) Affidavit of Counter Demand (#38); and (3) Affidavit of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (#39). As defendant is represented by counsel, these motions will be summarily denied. L.Cr.R. 47.1(H). While there may be other people in the local jail who believe such filings are a good thing, defendant is advised that he has nothing to gain by making such filings
More

ORDER

MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the court on defendant's pro se:

(1) Affidavit to Dismiss (#37); (2) Affidavit of Counter Demand (#38); and (3) Affidavit of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (#39).

As defendant is represented by counsel, these motions will be summarily denied. L.Cr.R. 47.1(H). While there may be other people in the local jail who believe such filings are a good thing, defendant is advised that he has nothing to gain by making such filings and everything to lose as such uncounseled pleadings may be considered admissions and used against him at sentencing. Defendant is advised to consult with his very experienced attorney in preparing for sentencing.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that defendant's pro se:

(1) Affidavit to Dismiss (#37); (2) Affidavit of Counter Demand (#38); and (3) Affidavit of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (#39),

are DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer