Opinion
Case No. 92-CR-80236-DT.
March 13, 2006
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT FELIX WALLS'S "OBJECTION TO MARCH 2, 2006 COURT APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY"
Pending before the court is Defendant Felix Walls's March 8, 2006 "Objection to Court Appointment of Attorney." In his petition, Defendant once again challenges the court's determination that Defendant is not entitled to certain discovery from the Government. The court has already denied multiple requests made by Defendant for such relief, ( see 1/26/06, 2/23/06 3/06/06 Orders), and Defendant has presented no basis to re-examine this issue. Instead, Defendant complains that the court's appointment of an attorney is somehow a "coverup" to the alleged illegal denial of the requested discovery. (3/08/06 Objection at 1.) There is no merit to Defendant's argument, and the court rejects it as frivolous. The court appointed an attorney because it became apparent at the March 2, 2006 hearing that Defendant was not going to retain an attorney and the court wanted to ensure that Defendant has the opportunity, if he so chooses, to consult with or otherwise utilize the services of an attorney in connection with his re-sentencing.
Defendant, however, is still in primary control of his case, and may utilize his standby counsel, William W. Swor, however he desires, within the bounds of Mr. Swor's professional responsibilities. To that end, standby counsel must be available in case Defendant chooses to consult, must familiarize himself with the issues in the case and must attend all proceedings. All pleadings or orders shall be served on both Defendant and standby counsel.
For example, Mr. Swor should be available to conduct any necessary legal research, draft any necessary motions or, perhaps, provide Defendant with a copy of any statute he may request.
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's "Objection to Court Appointment of Attorney" [Dkt. # 579] is DENIED.
A separate order will issue regarding pre-sentence responsibilities.