IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 26, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ALAN DAVID TIKAL, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
ORDER INFORMING DEFENDANT THAT HYBRID REPRESENTATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED
On November 20, 2012, Defendant Alan David Tikal ("Defendant") filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in propria persona while he was simultaneously represented by counsel. This filing is disregarded since Defendant has not been authorized to engage in hybrid representation. "A criminal defendant does not have an absolute right to both self-representation and the assistance of counsel." United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir. 1981). Counsel has been appointed to represent Defendant, and the undersigned judge has not authorized Defendant to engage in hybrid representation. "Whether to allow hybrid representation, where the accused assumes some of the lawyer's functions, is within the sound discretion of the judge." United States v. Williams, 791 F.2d 1383, 1389 (9th Cir. 1986)(citation omitted). Since Defendant has not voluntarily waived counsel on any issue involved in his case, he is not authorized to both self-representation and the assistance of counsel. See United States v. Turnbull, 888 F.2d 636, 638 (9th Cir. 1989)("If the defendant assumes any of the 'core functions' of the lawyer, however, the hybrid scheme is acceptable only if the defendant has voluntarily waived counsel.").
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.