Opinion
CRIMINAL 1:22-cr-00016-MR-WCM 1:23-cr-00037-MR-WCM
01-15-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SHAWN THOMAS JOHNSON, Defendant.
ORDER
Martin Reidinger Chief United States District Judge
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's pro se “Motion to Correct and Reduce Sentence” [Case No. 1:22cr16, Doc. 94; Case No. 1:23cr37, Doc. 20] and the Defendant's pro se “Notice of Appeal” [Case No. 1:22cr16, Doc. 95, Case No. 1:23cr37, Doc. 21].
On March 25, 2022, in Case No. 1:22cr16, the Defendant Shawn Thomas Johnson pled guilty to one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. [Case No. 1:22cr16, Docs. 1, 3]. On June 16, 2023, in Case No. 1:23cr37, the Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). [Case No. 1:23cr37, Docs. 1-3, 8]. On December 14, 2023, the Defendant was sentenced to a term of 92 months' imprisonment in Case No. 1:22cr16 and a term of 92 months' imprisonment in Case No. 1:23cr37, to be served concurrently. [Id., Doc. 92]. The Defendant has been at all times throughout these proceedings represented by retained counsel. Counsel has filed a notice of appeal on behalf of the Defendant. [Case No. 1:22cr16, Doc. 99; Case No. 1:23cr37, Doc. 24].
By the present pro se filings, the Defendant moves to correct and reduce his sentence and to appeal the Judgment. [Case No. 1:22cr16, Docs. 94, 95; Case No. 1:23cr37, Docs. 20, 21].
The Defendant also has written a letter addressing an alleged “potential miscarriage of justice in the sentence, judgment, and forfeiture order of the Court....” [Case No. 1:22cr16, Doc. 97 at 1; Case No. 1:23cr37, Doc. 23 at 1]. In addition to being procedurally improper under Local Criminal Rule 47.1(g), these letters are subject to being stricken on the basis that a party cannot seek relief through the filing of letters. Only motions will be ruled on by the Court.
The Defendant's pro se filings are procedurally improper. The Defendant is currently represented by retained counsel. The Court does not ordinarily entertain motions filed by a criminal defendant who is represented by counsel and who has not formally waived his right to counsel. See LCrR 47.1(g). Moreover, counsel already has filed a notice of appeal on behalf of the Defendant. As such, the Defendant's notice of appeal is redundant.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's pro se “Motion to Correct and Reduce Sentence” [Case No. 1:22cr16, Doc. 94; Case No. 1:23cr37, Doc. 20] and the Defendant's pro se “Notice of Appeal” [Case No. 1:22cr16, Doc. 95; Case No. 1:23cr37, Doc. 21] are hereby STRICKEN as procedurally improper.
IT IS SO ORDERED.