USA v. Harris et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 05-0023-WS
)
JEROME HARRIS, JR., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant Jerome Harris, Jr.’s pro se Motion (doc. 54) and
Notice of Appeal (doc. 55).
On June 1, 2005, Harris was tried and found guilty of possession of crack cocaine with intent
to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and carrying six firearms during and in relation to a drug trafficking
offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). A sentencing hearing on these convictions has been set
for September 19, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. Despite being presently represented by retained counsel,
defendant has now filed a pro se Notice of Appeal, as well as Motion complaining of alleged civil rights
violations in the Baldwin County Jail pertaining to his access to law books and research materials.
Because defendant has not yet been sentenced and judgment has not yet been entered against
him, his purported Notice of Appeal is premature. See Rule 4(b), Fed.R.App.P. As the Eleventh
Circuit has explained, “In a criminal case the notice of appeal is to be filed in district court within ten
days after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from. ... In a criminal case the final judgment
means the sentence. The sentence is the judgment.” United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079 (11th Cir.
1985); see also Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263, 104 S.Ct. 1051 (1984) (explaining
that final judgment rule generally prohibits appellate review of criminal cases until after conviction and
imposition of sentence). Defendant does not offer any possible explanation why appeal in this case
cannot await entry of final judgment. Compare Pagan v. United States, 353 F.3d 1343, 1345 (11th
Case 1:05-cr-00023-TFM-C Doc# 57 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>

-2-
Cir. 2003) (identifying limited circumstances in which collateral orders may be deemed appealable in
criminal cases, and requiring that the order “be effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final
judgment”).
Furthermore, defendant’s stated concerns regarding conditions in the Baldwin County Jail and
his request for injunctive relief against Baldwin County Jail officials are not remediable in the form and
context in which they are presented. Finally, and fundamentally, because Harris is represented by
counsel, he is not entitled both to appear through counsel and to represent himself in these proceedings.
See, e.g., Cross v. United States, 893 F.2d 1287, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 1990) (explaining that Eleventh
Circuit “has held repeatedly that an individual does not have a right to hybrid representation”).
For all of these reasons, defendant’s pro se filings (docs. 54 & 55) are hereby stricken,
without prejudice to his right to reassert them at appropriate times and in appropriate circumstances.
Defendant’s retained counsel is hereby placed on notice of his client’s pro se filings and is directed to
review them and take any action deemed appropriate.
DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of June, 2005.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:05-cr-00023-TFM-C Doc# 57 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>