The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez Honorable John A. Mendez
SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS AND SENTENCING AND JUDGMENT HEARING DATE
By stipulation and agreement Defendant Duke Nottingham substitutes KRESTA NORA DALY, KENDALL DAWSON WASLEY, and Rothschild Wishek & Sands, LLP located at 901 F Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95814, telephone 916-444- 9845, as his attorneys of record in the place and stead of DOUGLAS BEEVERS and the Office of the Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California located at 801 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, telephone 916-498-5700.
KRESTA N. DALY Rothschild Wishek & Sands, LLP
KENDALL DAWSON WASLEY Rothschild Wishek & Sands, LLP
DOUGLAS BEEVERS Office of the Federal Defender, Eastern District of California
DUKE NOTTINGHAM Defendant
It is further stipulated and agreed to between the United States of America through CAROLYN DELANEY, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and defendant, Duke Nottingham, through his counsel, KRESTA DALY and KENDALL DAWSON WASLEY, that the judgment and sentencing hearing set for December 14, 2010 be vacated and that a new sentencing and judgment hearing date be set for February 22, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
Defense counsel is completely new to this case. In order to provide effective assistance of counsel new defense counsel must review the discovery in this case. The defense intends to present mitigation evidence at the sentencing in this case. At this early stage the defense has some ideas regarding which experts the defense intends to involve and is in the process of contacting those experts. At least one expert is on vacation and will not be back for a couple of weeks.
It has been defense counsel's experience in the past that once counsel begins to delve deeply into a case and the early investigation comes back the defense requires additional investigation and other work.
Defense counsel currently estimates it will take approximately two months to complete the work defense counsel contemplates will be necessary. In the past defense counsel has provided the information counsel obtained to probation so probation can consider this evidence in their pre-sentence report. Assuming following a similar path is advisable in this case*fn1 defense counsel's information would be provided to probation in December 2010. Probation needs time to draft and dictate their report after they have had sufficient time to review and consider the defense ...