Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Lombard

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 27, 2016

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Terrance Lombard, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Sean F. Cox United States District Judge

         In this criminal action, Defendant Terrance Lombard (“Lombard”) is charged with drug offenses. On October 26, 2016, the matter came before the Court on a Motion to Withdraw, filed by Lombard's current counsel at Lombard's request, and a pro se “Motion for Disclosure of Brady Materials” filed by Lombard on October 25, 2016. This Memorandum Opinion sets forth the Court's rulings on both motions, which were made on the record on October 26, 2016.

         BACKGROUND

         Lombard is charged with: 1) Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) (Count One); and 2) Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count Two). The Indictment also contains forfeiture allegations.

         Lombard was originally represented by retained counsel, attorney Arlene Woods. Woods was permitted to withdraw as counsel for Lombard on October 29, 2015. (D.E. No. 12).

         Ben Gonek, an experienced criminal attorney, was then appointed to represent Lombard. On May 23, 2016, Gonek filed a Motion to Withdraw, because Lombard no longer wanted Gonek to represent him. (D.E. No. 19). On May 27, 2016, this Court allowed Gonek to withdraw.

         W. Otis Culpepper, another experienced criminal attorney, was then appointed to represent Lombard. On June 29, 2016, Culpepper made an oral Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Lombard, because Lombard did not want Culpepper to represent him. This Court allowed Culpepper to withdraw on July 1, 2016. This Court advised Lombard that another attorney would be appointed to represent him in this action, but cautioned Lombard that the Court would not continue to appoint new attorneys for him absent a compelling reason.

         Robert F. Kinney, yet another experienced criminal attorney, was then appointed to represent Lombard. Kinney is the fourth attorney that has represented Lombard in this action.

         Kinney filed a motion seeking to withdraw, on October 17, 2016, because Lombard advised him he did not want to be represented by him and asked that he file the motion.

         Prior to filing the motion seeking to withdraw, Kinney filed two motions on behalf of Lombard: 1) a motion requesting leave to file a motion to suppress (D.E. No. 31); and 2) a Motion to Suppress (D.E. No. 30). This Court granted leave to file the late Motion to Suppress, via a text-only order on October 17, 2016. That motion will be addressed in a separate Opinion and Order.

         On or about October 25, 2016, Lombard filed a pro se “Motion for Disclosure of Brady Materials.” (D.E. No. 38).

         ANALYSIS

         I. Lombard's Motion For Disclosure Of Brady Materials Was Denied As Moot.

         As discussed on the record on October 26, 2016, Lombard's pro se Motion for Disclosure of Brady Materials is moot. That is because, as the Government stated at the hearing, the Government is aware of its obligations under Brady and will comply with ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.