UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
January 7, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
LAMONT DAVID OSBORN, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the pro se motion of defendant Lamont David Osborn for reconsideration of the Court's order (Doc. 171) denying his motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Osborn filed this motion pro se, although he is represented by the Federal Public Defender in connection with a potential sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). A defendant does not have a right to file his own motions when he is represented by counsel. See Hayes v. Hawes, 921 F.2d 100, 102 (7th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). "The right to representation by counsel and self-representation are mutually exclusive." Cain v. Peters, 972 F.2d 748, 750 (7th Cir. 1992). So-called "hybrid representation" confuses and extends proceedings and, therefore, it is forbidden. See United States v. Oreye, 263 F.3d 669, 672-73 (7th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the Court ORDERS the defendant's pro se motion (Doc. 171) be STRICKEN. Osborn may not file pro se motions unless and until his counsel is allowed to withdraw from this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.