Becton v. United States
- P. Castel
- 1:24-cv-03439
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Becton v. United States, Judge Castel denied Schmitz’s letter motion, barring hybrid representation while Becton proceeds without a lawyer on his sentence challenge.
Charod Becton must proceed on his § 2255 motion without Schmitz acting on his behalf unless Becton retains Schmitz or the court later appoints counsel. Schmitz’s letter motion was denied, and the court did not decide Becton’s sentence challenge.
What happened
In Becton v. United States, Charod Becton filed a motion challenging his sentence without a lawyer. Before that filing, attorney James M. Schmitz had sought access to case materials and help for Becton, including a possible appointment of counsel and discovery.
The court said Becton’s filing made the earlier requests for counsel and documents unnecessary. It also treated Schmitz’s earlier unfiled submissions as abandoned or moot because Schmitz did not file the required redacted version. Schmitz later asked for appointed counsel and discovery while stating that he did not represent Becton on the sentence challenge.
Judge Castel ruled that Becton and Schmitz could not use a shared lawyer-and-self-representation arrangement. The court denied Schmitz’s June 4, 2024 letter motion and said Schmitz had no role in the sentence challenge while Becton continued without a lawyer. The court said it would consider whether to appoint counsel after reviewing the government’s response.
The detailed version
- Becton v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-03439
- P. Castel
- June 11, 2024
Background
On April 30, 2024, Charod Becton, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Before that filing, Becton had sought production of his case files, an extension of time to file a § 2255 motion, and other assistance. The court denied those earlier requests.
Attorney James M. Schmitz later submitted materials seeking help for Becton, including appointment of counsel and access to documents. Schmitz sought to have one submission filed under seal, but the court denied that request without prejudice to filing a narrower sealed and redacted version. Schmitz did not file the required version. After Becton filed his § 2255 motion, Schmitz submitted a June 4, 2024 letter stating that he did not represent Becton on the § 2255 motion but asking the court to appoint an attorney and permit discovery for Becton.
Issue
The issue was whether Schmitz could seek counsel and discovery for Becton while Becton continued to represent himself on the § 2255 motion.
Court’s reasoning
The court treated Schmitz’s earlier unfiled submissions as abandoned or moot. They were abandoned because Schmitz did not file the required redacted submission. The requests for counsel and pre-motion document production were moot because Becton had already filed his § 2255 motion.
The court stated that a defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation, meaning simultaneous representation by a lawyer and self-representation in the same matter. Because Becton stated that he was proceeding without a lawyer and Schmitz agreed that he did not represent Becton on the § 2255 motion, the court concluded that Schmitz had no authority to speak for Becton concerning that motion. The court noted that Becton could retain Schmitz, but then Becton would no longer be proceeding without a lawyer.
Disposition
The court denied Schmitz’s June 4, 2024 letter motion, which it described as implicitly acting for Becton. The court said that Schmitz had no role in adjudicating Becton’s § 2255 motion in its present posture. After reviewing the government’s response, the court would consider whether appointment of counsel was appropriate. The court did not decide the merits of Becton’s § 2255 claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.