Opinion
No. 4:15-cR-00158-BHH-1
04-11-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. THOMAS BRADFORD WATERS
ORDER
A criminal defendant has the right to be represented by counsel, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963), or to represent himself, see Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807 (1975). However, a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to hybrid representation, i.e. both through counsel and self-representation or pro se. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984); see also United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, 206 n.17 (3rd Cir. 2006) (holding a district court has the authority to issue limitations on pro se filings submitted while the party is represented by counsel). Therefore, as a general rule, a defendant represented by counsel is not entitled to have his pro se motions considered by the court.
Here, Defendant Thomas Bradford Waters ("Defendant") has filed three pro se motions (ECF Nos. 135; 151; 153). Defendant, however, is currently represented by a court-appointed attorney. Therefore, the Court finds that he is attempting to proceed in a hybrid fashion. As the right of self-representation does not include the right to hybrid representation, the court DENIES Defendant's pro se motions (ECF Nos. 135; 151; 153). Defendant should seek relief from this Court through his court-appointed attorney.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge April 11, 2016
Florence, South Carolina