USA v. Hicks, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 3:25-CR-51-TAV-DCP
)
DARRIN ALBERT-EUGENE HICKS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendant Darrin Hicks’s pro se request raising alleged
problems with the attorney-client relationship [Doc. 95], filed on October 7, 2026, and docketed
as a motion on October 9, 2026. Appointed defense counsel Assistant Federal Defender Benjamin
G. Sharp filed a Motion to Review Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 96] on October 13, 2026.
In the pro se motion, Defendant requests “appropriate relief” because he feels defense
counsel’s representation as “f[allen] below the level of reasonably effective counsel” [Doc. 95 p.
1]. He claims that counsel has not communicated important decisions in this case adequately and
his trust in counsel is “irreparably broken” [Id.]. He also questions counsel’s investigation of the
case and “pursuit of meritorious defenses” [Id.]. Defense counsel contends that he met with
Defendant on the pro se motion, and Defendant continues to request the appointment of new
counsel [Doc. 96 p. 1]. Counsel “believes the attorney/client relationship is irreparably damaged
in its current state” [Id.]
The parties appeared before the Court for a hearing on the motion on October 15, 2026.
Assistant United States Attorney Alan S. Kirk appeared on behalf of the Government. Assistant
Case 3:25-cr-00051-TAV-DCP Document 99 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
Federal Defender Benjamin G. Sharp appeared on behalf of Defendant, who was also present.
Attorney Robert R. Kurtz was also present at the Court’s request.
At the motion hearing, the Government confirmed that it had no position on the matter.
The Court also conducted a sealed, ex parte portion of the hearing to learn more about the nature
and extent of the problems with the attorney-client relationship. Without going into the
confidential nature of that discussion, the Court notes that the responses of Mr. Sharp and
Defendant to the Court’s inquiries reasonably satisfy the Court that there are sufficient grounds to
substitute counsel based on a strained relationship, which has compromised defense counsel’s
ability to defend Defendant and render effective assistance of counsel. Good cause therefore exists
for substitution of counsel.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS counsel’s Motion to Review the Appointment of
Counsel [Doc. 96] and Defendant’s pro se motion for substitution of counsel [Doc. 95]. Assistant
Federal Defender Sharp and the Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee (“FDSET”) are
RELIEVED as counsel of record for Defendant. Attorney Robert R. Kurtz agreed to accept
representation of Defendant at the hearing.1 The Court SUBSTITUTES and APPOINTS
Attorney Robert R. Kurtz under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, as counsel of record
for Defendant. The Court DIRECTS Assistant Federal Defender Sharp to provide discovery and
information from Defendant’s file to Attorney Kurtz.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
(1) 	Defendant’s pro se motion for substitute counsel [Doc. 95]
and defense counsel’s Motion to Review the Appointment of
Counsel [Doc. 96] are GRANTED;
(2) 	Assistant Federal Defender Benjamin G. Sharp and FDSET
are RELIEVED of further representation of Defendant; and
1 	At the hearing, Attorney Kurtz noted that he had a conflict with the scheduled January 12,
2027 trial date in this matter.
Case 3:25-cr-00051-TAV-DCP Document 99 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
(3) 	Attorney 	Robert 	R. 	Kurtz 	is 	SUBSTITUTED 	and
APPOINTED as counsel of record for Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
______________________________
Debra C. Poplin
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cr-00051-TAV-DCP Document 99 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>