Opinion
1:22-CR-99 (3)
06-26-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KENNETH JAMES GOINS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MARCIA A. CRONE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 19, 2023, Defendant Kenneth James Goins (“Goins”) filed his pro se letter motion (#184). This motion does not bear the signature of Goins's court-appointed counsel. Defense counsel has informed the court that he does not adopt Goins's motion. See Papillion v. Vannoy, No. 2:16-CV-00273, 2016 WL 7323320, at *2 (W.D. La. Dec. 13, 2016) (“An attorney is not required to adopt a pro se motion filed by his client.”); accord Duraso v. Vannoy, No. 2:17-CV-1530, 2018 WL 3469726, at *12 (W.D. La. June 7, 2018), adopted by 2018 WL 3469623 (W.D. La. July 18, 2018).
Without the approval of or the adoption of the motion by defense counsel, Goins is not permitted to file pro se pleadings. A “criminal defendant does not have the right . . . to a ‘hybrid representation,' partly by counsel and partly by himself.” United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir. 1978); accord United States v. Lee, No. 21-50591, 2022 WL 5102002, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 4, 2022); United States v. Agbonifo, No. 20-20293, 2022 WL 808001, at *5 (5th Cir. Mar. 16, 2022); United States v. Jones, 842 Fed.Appx. 878, 884 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 171 (2021); Whitman v. Clerk of Court, 786 Fed.Appx. 228, 231 (11th Cir. 2019); United States v. Jimenez, 744 Fed.Appx. 866, 867 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Wiley, 707 Fed.Appx. 802, 803 (5th Cir. 2017). Therefore, the court will not consider Goins's motion. See United States v. Miller, 54 F.4th 219, 227 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting that “other circuits agree that a defendant has no right to hybrid representation for written motions”); Jones, 842 Fed.Appx. at 883 (“When a defendant is represented by counsel, he or she does not have the right to file pro se motions.”); United States v. Dale, 618 Fed.Appx. 494, 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (finding no abuse of discretion where the district court declined to consider defendant's pro se motion for new trial while he was represented by counsel), cert. denied, 577 U.S. 1090 (2016); accord Jimenez, 744 Fed.Appx. at 867 (holding defendant's pro se motion was properly ignored by the court “because [defendant] was represented by counsel when it was filed”); Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (holding that “[b]ecause the motion for new trial was presented pro se while the appellant was represented by counsel, the trial court was free to rule on it, or disregard it”).
Accordingly, it is ordered that Goins's pro se letter motion (#184) is stricken from the record.