Opinion
Case No. CR410-224.
February 23, 2011
ORDER
Indicted for possession of a loaded handgun by a convicted felon and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, doc. 1, defendant Michael Williams moved to suppress the gun and drugs seized from him. Docs. 17 21. The Report and Recommendation (R R) advising denial of that motion is still pending. Doc. 29.
Williams sent the undersigned the attached, February 15, 2011-dated letter airing various complaints and concerns about his court-appointed counsel, Martin G. Hilliard. For example, he says Hilliard gave him bad advice about moving for release on bond. Id. And he is worried that Hilliard personally knew the police witness who testified against him at the suppression hearing (the R R in no small part relied on her testimony). The two talked before she took the stand. "When I confronted Mr. Hilliard he told me that he have [sic] known her for 10 years and they where [sic] talking about her son but before she set [sic] to take the stand!!" Id. He ends his letter with a question: "What can I do?" Id.
Letters are not welcome in this Court. Motions, briefs, etc., get filed; letters get lost. The law places the burden upon litigants, not judges, to create their own record by filing record materials — including legal arguments best presented in a motion or brief — directly with the Clerk of Court. See In re Unsolicited Letters to Federal Judges, 120 F.Supp.2d 1073 (S.D. Ga. 2000); see also United States v. Baird, 2008 WL 4222048 * 7 (S.D. Ga. Sep. 15, 2008) (explaining how a represented defendant's unchecked stream of letters to this Court not only undermined his own defense counsel's efforts, but hampered the Court's "duty to ensure that the record reflect all filings and proceedings aimed at influencing judicial results.").
To the extent Williams seeks replacement counsel, it is denied unless he wishes to pay for one at his own expense. "Although an indigent criminal defendant has a right to be represented by counsel, he does not have a right . . . to demand a different appointed lawyer except for good cause." United States v. Young, 482 F.2d 993, 995 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Quinones, 372 F. App'x 34, 35 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Thomas v. Wainwright, 767 F.2d 738, 742 (11th Cir. 1985); see Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-15 (1983) (declining to create a Sixth Amendment right to a "meaningful attorney-client relationship"). Good cause for substitution requires a showing that a defendant's appointed counsel cannot provide adequate assistance for one of several reasons, such as a conflict of interest, a complete breakdown in communication, or an irreconcilable conflict between counsel and his client. Young, 482 F.2d at 995. Williams has not come close to making such a showing. Hence, he has not shown facts meriting any further inquiry. Defendant Michael Williams's (attached) "letter-motion" for judicial inquiry into or replacement of his appointed counsel is therefore DENIED. SO ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 2011.
Exhibit