From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Berry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 11, 2015
Case Number 15-20743 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 11, 2015)

Opinion

Case Number 15-20743

12-11-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DUANE LETROY BERRY, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant Duane Letroy Berry, although represented by counsel, has filed a motion on his own seeking dismissal of the criminal complaint against him. Mr. Berry's motion consists of a single sentence, which requests " Immediate dismissal of the aforementioned Criminal Complaint based on False Statements and Conspiracy against Rights," and accompanied by his affidavit. After Mr. Berry filed his motion, an indictment was returned against him. The complaint, therefore, has no further legal significance in this case.

"[T]he Indictment is the charging instrument in [a] criminal matter and it supersedes the Criminal Complaint." United States v. Houston, 2013 WL 3975405, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. July 29, 2013) (citing 1 Charles Alan Wright & Andrew D. Leipold, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Crim. § 41 (4th ed.)). "If an indictment has been returned or an information filed prior to the arrest, a warrant may be issued on this ground alone pursuant to Rule 9. In such a case, probable cause has already been established and there is no need for a [criminal] complaint." 1 Charles Alan Wright & Andrew D. Leipold, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Crim. § 41 (4th ed.); see also United States v. Smith, 2001 WL 420368, at *1 (W.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2001) (finding the return of the indictment against the defendant mooted the basis for the defendant's motion to dismiss the criminal complaint).

Aside from the failure of the motion to state grounds that might warrant dismissal of the complaint, the motion does not seek action by the Court which would provide the defendant with any meaningful relief at this stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Mr. Berry's motion to dismiss the indictment [dkt. #11] is DENIED.

s/David M. Lawson

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge Dated: December 11, 2015

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on December 11, 2015

s/Susan Pinkowski

SUSAN PINKOWSKI


Summaries of

United States v. Berry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 11, 2015
Case Number 15-20743 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 11, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Berry

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DUANE LETROY BERRY, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 11, 2015

Citations

Case Number 15-20743 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 11, 2015)