USA v. Tillman, et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 6:19-cr-60035-001
DEANTHONY L. TILLMAN 	DEFENDANT
O R D E R
On April 7, 2020, Defendant, DEANTHONY L. TILLMAN, filed a pro se Motion to
Compel Full Discovery and for New Counsel. 	ECF No. 35. 	Defendant has been appointed
competent counsel, namely Mr. Matthew Hill of the Federal Defender’s office for the Western
District of Arkansas. 	ECF No. 13. 	The Court ORDERED Mr. Hill to respond ex parte to the
instant Motion. ECF No. 37. Mr. Hill filed his response ex parte and under seal on April 27, 2020.
ECF No. 41.
1. The pro se Motion to Compel Discovery: Defendant asserts he has requested copies
of the discovery provided by the Government to Mr. Hill in this case. 	The Court takes judicial
notice of the Government’s policy, in this District, of only providing discovery to defense counsel
on the condition that counsel not provide copies to defendant. 	Essentially the first part of this
Motion is a pro se request to have Mr. Hill violate the parameters of discovery he has accepted
from the Government in order to access the materials provided to him under FED.R.C RIM.P 16.
This is a pro se request by a represented defendant. A “district court has no obligation to
entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party.” United States v. Pate, 754 F.3d 550, 553
(8th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). (“we preliminarily and promptly reject Pate's
claim that the district “court erred by not ruling on [his] pro se motions.”). Likewise, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled it would not consider the pro se filings of
Case 6:19-cr-60035-SOH Document 42 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
a Defendant represented by counsel in appellate proceedings. See United States v. Jones, 698 F.3d
1048, 1051–52 (8th Cir. 2012) (“Generally, it is Eighth Circuit policy not to address issues raised
by a defendant in pro se filings with this Court when he is represented by counsel.”).
A defendant in a criminal matter has the right to be represented by an attorney or to
represent himself. 	A defendant cannot have counsel and represent himself at the same time, as
the Eighth Circuit has stated: “[A] defendant does not have a constitutional right to hybrid
representation.” United States v. Summage, 575 F.3d 864, 876 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807 (1975) and Gideon v. Wainwright,
372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963)).
In this case Defendant currently has competent Court appointed counsel. 	He also has
requested new counsel, which the Court addresses below. Accordingly, the Court finds the pro se
Motion to Compel Discovery should be denied.
2. 	Request for New Counsel: 	Defendant also requests new counsel. 	The Court has
reviewed the sealed ex parte Response of Mr. Hill to this request. 	ECF No. 41. 	Based on the
representations of Mr. Hill in his Response, the Court finds the request for new Counsel should be
granted.
IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s pro se Motion to Compel Full Discovery and for New
Counsel (ECF No. 35) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Defendant’s pro se Motion
to Compel Discovery is DENIED. Defendant’s pro se Motion for New Counsel is GRANTED.
Mr. Matthew Hill is relieved as counsel for Defendant in this matter. 	The Court
APPOINTS Mr. Morse Gist of Hot Springs, Arkansas, as counsel for the Defendant. 	Mr. Hill
shall provide a copy of his case materials to Mr. Gist within seven (7) days of the date of this order.
The parties are reminded this matter remains set for jury trial on June 5, 2020, at 9:00 am in Hot
Springs, Arkansas.
Case 6:19-cr-60035-SOH Document 42 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
SIGNED this 28th day of April 2020.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:19-cr-60035-SOH Document 42 Filed 04/29/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>