Unpublished Disposition Notice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel J.M. Davis, Jr., Defendant-Appellant., 856 F.2d 196 (6th Cir. 1988)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (August 17, 1988)

Docket number: 88-5787

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/disposition-disfavored-samuel-davis-37225202
Id. vLex: VLEX-37225202

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Supreme Court - Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred M. Mosely, Defendant-Appellant., 810 F.2d 93 (6th Cir. 1987)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert E. Bratcher, Defendant-Appellant., 833 F.2d 69 (6th Cir. 1988)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

RSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Jerald L. Kendrick, Plaintiff, James Peters, John R. Vaughn, Darrell Scott and Michael Friend, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David H. Bland, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 931 F.2d 421 (6th Cir. 1991)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Notice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Wilson, Defendant-Appellant., 891 F.2d 293 (6th Cir. 1989)

See all citations to this document

Text:

Before KENNEDY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges, and HERMAN JACOB WEBER, District Judge.*

ORDER

This matter has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

A review of the file shows that the criminal defendant, Davis, seeks to appeal the order of the district court entered June 27, 1988, denying his pretrial motion to act as co-counsel in his criminal trial with his court-appointed attorney. Appellant appealed from that order on July 6, 1988. The district court docket sheet reflects that Davis' criminal trial is scheduled to commence August 22, 1988.

This court lacks jurisdiction in this appeal. The order denying the defendant's motion for "hybrid representation" does not fall within the narrow class of situations in criminal prosecutions which are permitted interlocutory review under the collateral order exception of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). See United States v. Bratcher, 833 F.2d 69, 72 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 760 (1988). Moreover, a criminal defendant has no constitutionally protected right to proceed pro se in addition to being represented by an attorney at his trial. See United States v. Mosley, 810 F.2d 93, 97-98 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 129 (1987).

It is ORDERED that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

* The Honorable Herman Jacob Weber, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation