U.S. v. Wilkes

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALTIMONT WILKES

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: May 16, 2005

Criminal No. 1:04-CR-0287 (M.D. Pa. May. 16, 2005)

Opinion

Criminal No. 1:04-CR-0287.

May 16, 2005

ORDER

CHRISTOPHER CONNER, District Judge

AND NOW, this 16th day of May, 2005, upon consideration of the correspondence from defendant (Doc. 54) dated May 5, 2005, and addressed to the attention of the court, in which defendant asserts several procedural violations arising from his arrest and initial appearance and the seizure of property by law enforcement officials, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 12, 41(g), and it appearing that defendant is presently represented by counsel (Doc. 26), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The correspondence (Doc. 54) is CONSTRUED as a motion to dismiss and for return of property and is STRICKEN from the record in the above-captioned case.¹

2. Counsel for defendant shall, on or before May 18, 2005, consult with defendant regarding the motion (Doc. 54), defendant's right of self-representation, and the consequences of defendant's invocation of the right of self-representation.²

3. Defendant shall be permitted, on or before May 23, 2005, to file a motion to proceed pro se in the above-captioned case.

4. Defendant hereafter shall refrain from submitting correspondence addressed to the attention of the court but shall, if appropriate, file future requests for relief as formal motions.

1 See Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2001) ("A district court has no obligation to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party."); United States v. Tracy, 989 F.2d 1279, 1285 (1st Cir. 1993) (same); United States v. Gallardo, 915 F. Supp. 216, 218 n. 1 (D. Nev. 1995) (same); Non-Punitive Segregation Inmates of Holmesburg Prison v. Kelly, 589 F. Supp. 1330, 1335-36 (E.D. Pa. 1984) (same); see also McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984) ("[The Constitution] does not require a trial judge to permit `hybrid' representation. . . ."); United States v. Singleton, 107 F.3d 1091, 1100 n. 7 (4th Cir. 1997) (same); Linnen v. Armainis, 991 F.2d 1102, 1105 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1993) (same); United States v. Romano, 849 F.2d 812, 816 (3d Cir. 1988) (same); cf. United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092, 1098 (3d Cir. 1995).

2 See, e.g., Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975); United States v. Stubbs, 281 F.3d 109, 117 (3d Cir. 2002).