Opinion
Crim. No. 01-162(1) (JRT/FLN)
March 22, 2004
Michelle E. Jones, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiff
Olusoji Michael Agboola, White Deer, PA, for pro se
ORDER
In January of 2003, Olusoji Michael Agboola ("Agboola") entered pleas of guilty and nolo contendere to a 43 count superceding indictment. The Court sentenced Agboola on December 19, 2003 to 108 months of imprisonment on Counts 2 through 10 and 12 through 40; and 60 months on counts 1, 11, 41-43 and 108, to be served concurrently. Agboola was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and filed a notice of appeal through his counsel dated December 26, 2003. On December 30, 2003, Agboola filed a pro se letter request entitled "Request for a New Trial." The prosecution has moved to strike the request for a new trial, or in the alternative argues that the request should be denied. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the request for a new trial, but will not strike the letter request.
ANALYSIS
Agboola's pro se request for a new trial indicates that the basis of the request is new evidence and witnesses whose testimony will prove Agboola's innocence. Agboola, though his counsel, has appealed his conviction and sentence. This Court, therefore, is without jurisdiction to consider Agboola's pro se motion for a new trial. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) ("The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal."); see also Gundacker v. Unisys Corp., 151 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir. 1998). Because the Court does not have jurisdiction, the Court cannot address the merits of the request, and the request for a new trial is denied.The prosecution suggests that the Court strike the request because Agboola cannot represent himself and be represented by counsel. Agboola indicated at the time of the sentencing that he was satisfied with counsel's representation of him and has not dismissed his counsel or asked to be represented by alternate counsel. The Court agrees that Agboola may choose either to represent himself or be represented by counsel. The Court also agrees that Agboola is represented by able counsel, and the Court has no information that he has attempted to remove his current attorney or asked for a new one. The Court will not strike the pro se filing however, because the Court finds the better course is to deny the motion, but retain the letter request in the file. This course of action is consistent with Eighth Circuit policy on pro se filings, and ensures no inadvertent prejudice to the defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Halverson, 973 F.2d 1415, 1417 (8th Cir. 1992) (noting that the Eighth Circuit's policy is not to accept pro se filings when the appellant is represented by counsel, but nonetheless the Court reviewed the pro se arguments and found them without merit); United States v. Payton, 918 F.2d 54, 56 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1990) (also accepting pro se filing). The Court notes, however, that the Court will not consider future pro se filings by Agboola unless Agboola chooses to represent himself. The Court also reminds Agboola that his case is now on appeal, and the proper forum is the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, all the records, files, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's pro se motion for a new trial [Docket No. 199] is DENIED.
2. The plaintiff's motion to strike or in the alternative to deny Agboola's motion for a new trial [Docket No. 206] is DENIED to the extent it requests defendant's pro se motion for a new trial to be stricken, and GRANTED to the extent it asks that Agboola's request for a new trial be denied.
3. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to defendant Olusoji Michael Agboola, #24468-018, Federal Correctional Institution, LSCI Allenwood, P.O. Box 1500, White Deer, PA 1788.