Opinion
Case No. 10 CR 961
10-20-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. VERNON CHAPMAN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court has received the Judge's Copy of a timely-filed hand-printed "Notice of Appeal" signed on October 13 by its preparer, defendant Vernon Chapman ("Chapman"), and received in the Clerk's Office on October 16. At the time of sentencing Chapman, this Court followed its uniform practice of apprising him of (1) his right to appeal, (2) his right to the appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act if he could not afford to retain counsel, (3) his right to have a notice of appeal prepared for him and (4) the 14-calendar-day limitation applicable to notices of appeal.
Chapman's Certificate of Service reports October 14 as the date of "filing" for purposes of the "mailbox rule" (see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)).
In this instance Chapman's filing does come within the 14-day limitation period. But the occasion for this sua sponte memorandum order is that he has also purported to sign for his trial attorney Bart Beals. Because the Criminal Justice Act (8 U.S.C. § 3006(A)(c)) provides for the continuity of representation by appointed counsel through appeal, Chapman's pro se handling appears to be irregular (and perhaps unauthorized) and the record should be corrected promptly.
Attorney Beals was the last of a whole series of members of the federal defender panel who represented Chapman during the life of this case, with all earlier appointees having withdrawn from representation or having been terminated at Chapman's request. Nothing in the current document reflects attorney Beals' consent to Chapman's signing on his behalf, nor does Chapman's attached Certificate of Service list attorney Beals among the persons to whom Chapman sent copies of the notice of appeal (only the AUSA assigned to the case and the Clerk of Court were so listed).
--------
/s/________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: October 20, 2014