United States v. Garner

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NICHOLAS COREY GARNER, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON

Date published: Mar 3, 2015

Criminal Case No. 12-cr-65-JMH (E.D. Ky. Mar. 3, 2015)

Opinion

Criminal Case No. 12-cr-65-JMH

03-03-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NICHOLAS COREY GARNER, Defendant.

Joseph M. Hood Senior U.S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

***

This matter is before the Court upon the Motion of Nicholas Corey Garner for appointment of counsel on appeal [DE 662]. In his Motion, he recalls that the district court "directed [him] to write the Sixth Circuit for an attorney" but "the Sixth Circuit says that they don't appoint lawyers the district court does." Defendant has filed a Notice of Appeal [DE 629], depriving this Court of jurisdiction with respect to most matters.

6 Cir. R. 12(c)(1) provides that "[t]rial counsel in criminal cases must continue representation of the defendant on appeal unless relieved by the [appellate] court." As Defendant will recall, the Court found no reason to dismiss his appointed trial counsel when the issue was before it and, thus, declined to appoint him new counsel. It was upon Defendant's motion that this Court, after consideration, permitted Defendant to represent himself and dismissed his counsel from further obligation in this matter prior to sentencing. Defendant, therefore, elected to file his Notice of Appeal pro se.

As the Court understands 6 Cir. R. 12(c)(1), Defendant alone is responsible for his representation until the disposition of any motion for appointment of new counsel is heard by the Court of Appeals. See 6 Cir. R. 12(c)(2) (anticipating that the Court of Appeals may direct appointment of counsel for an appellant under the Criminal Justice Act). In any event and in light of his Notice of Appeal, this Court has no authority to provide him with the relief he seeks, and Defendant should direct his requests for relief to the Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, IT IS ORDERED:

(1) that Defendant's Motion to appoint new counsel [DE 662] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his request for relief to the appropriate Court;

(2) that the Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order and the Defendant's Motion for appointment of counsel to the Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

This the 3rd day of March, 2015.

Signed By:

Joseph M. Hood

Senior U.S. District Judge