Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Farris, 3:18-CR-00099-RJC-DCK. (2020)

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20200131b10 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 30, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2020
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant's pro se Renewed Motion for a New Trial pursuant to Rule 33. (Doc. No. 112). The defendant alleges his appointed trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. However, he is currently represented by a different appointed lawyer. (Termination and Appointment of Counsel Oral Order, June 28, 2019). The defendant recently informed a magistrate judge that he did not wish to represent himself and
More

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant's pro se Renewed Motion for a New Trial pursuant to Rule 33. (Doc. No. 112).

The defendant alleges his appointed trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. However, he is currently represented by a different appointed lawyer. (Termination and Appointment of Counsel Oral Order, June 28, 2019). The defendant recently informed a magistrate judge that he did not wish to represent himself and affirmed his desire to be represented by counsel. (Inquiry into the Status of Counsel, Jan. 21, 2020). Local Criminal Rule 47.1(g) requires motions to be filed by counsel unless a defendant has formally waived his right to counsel before a judicial officer.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, that the defendant's pro se motion is DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to certify copies of this order to the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and to the United States Attorney.

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