Opinion
No. CR07-0033-LRR.
June 30, 2009
ORDER
The matter before the court is the defendant's pro se motion to expedite resentencing (docket no. 74). The defendant filed such motion on June 29, 2009. Among other things, the defendant requests that the sentencing hearing set for August 10, 2009 be moved up because he believes that he may have served enough time.
Regarding the instant motion, the defendant filed them while represented by counsel. This is impermissible. The defendant does not have a constitutional right to hybrid representation, that is, the defendant must choose either to proceed pro se or to utilize the full assistance of counsel who would present his defense. See United States v. Swinney, 970 F.2d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Lewis, 738 F.2d 916, 924 (8th Cir. 1984) (stating "[a] defendant in a criminal case does not have a constitutional right both to represent himself and to be represented by counsel" (citing United States v. Olson, 576 F.2d 1267, 1270 (8th Cir. 1978))); United States v. Williams, 534 F.2d 119, 123 (8th Cir. 1976) (stating "a criminal defendant has a right to represent himself or, alternatively, to be represented by counsel" (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975))); cf. United States v. Blum, 65 F.3d 1436, 1443 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1995) (noting it is Eighth Circuit policy to refuse to consider pro se filings when a party is represented by counsel (citing Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 472 (8th Cir. 1994))). Because he is currently being represented by JoAnne Lilledahl, the court need not address the instant motion. Accordingly, the defendant's pro se motion to expedite resentencing (docket no. 74) is denied without prejudice. If counsel deems it appropriate to have the court address the issues raised by the defendant, counsel is directed to resubmit them.