UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
January 27, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
KEON D. PENDLETON, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Keon Pendleton's pro se Motion (Doc. 510) for retroactive application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines to his crack cocaine offense. Pendleton is currently represented by Federal Public Defender Judith Kuenneke, who entered her appearance on January 22, 2010.
Although the Sixth Amendment provides criminal defendants the right to waive counsel and proceed pro se, see Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819-20 (1975), the right to "representation by counsel and self-representation are mutually exclusive entitlements . . . ." Cain v. Peters, 972 F.2d 748, 750 (7th Cir. 1992). So-called "hybrid representation" confuses and extends matters at trial and in other proceedings; therefore, it is forbidden. See United States v. Oreye, 263 F.3d 669, 672-73 (7th Cir. 2001) citing with approval Cain, supra.
Here, Pendleton is free to consult with his attorney in order to ensure that the Court is fully informed as to the specifics of his case and in order to ensure that the appropriate motions are filed. However, the Court will strike pro se motions by Pendleton so long as he is represented by counsel.
Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to STRIKE the instant motion (Doc. 510) from the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.