Opinion
Case No. 06-20137.
February 6, 2008
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Yousef Safiedine has filed a Motion for Specific Findings, pursuant to Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as a pro se Motion for appeal, and dismissal of charges.
This Court has made a ruling on the record of the specific findings of fact regarding the Court's decision in this case in accordance to FRCP 23(c), and reserves the right to further supplement the ruling with a written order. As such, Plaintiff's Motion for Specific Findings is MOOT. (Docket No. 48).
Defendant is filing a pro se motion even though he is still represented by counsel. A criminal defendant does not have a right to hybrid representation. See, United States v. Mosely, 810 F.2d 93, 98 (6th Cir. 1987) (Defendant, although a lawyer, was represented by counsel. The Sixth Circuit found that there is potential for undue delay and jury confusion when more than one attorney tries a case). A court's discretion to reject hybrid representation may apply to the filing of motions. See, United States v. Agofsky, 20 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir. 1994) (The court refused to consider motions filed by defendant's mother.) Although the Sixth Circuit has not expressly ruled that a defendant cannot file a motion on his or her own behalf if represented by counsel, the analysis in Mosely could be extended to filings of motions.
In Defendant's Motion, he asks for dismissal of all criminal and civil cases, and appeals the "disscion [sic] was made on January, 11, 2008," as well as a judgment for one trillion dollars. (Docket No. 50). This Court DENIES Defendant's motion, and notes that Defendant's right of appeal begins the date of the Judgment.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Specific Findings (Docket No. 48) filed January 2, 2008, be deemed MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's pro se Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 50) be DENIED.