United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
June 30, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SHAUN CHAPMAN, Defendant
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2015, this upon consideration of the pro se correspondence (Docs 22-23) filed by defendant Shaun Chapman (“Chapman”) wherein Chapman requests that the court remove his court-appointed counsel D Toni Byrd Esquire (“Attorney Byrd”) and allow him to proceed pro se with the assistance of standby counsel and after conducting an ex parte hearing on the matter on Friday June 26 2015 the court finding that Chapman has made a voluntary knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to representation by counsel see Buhl v Cooksey, 233 F.3d 783 789 (3d Cir 2000) (“[T]he constitutional right of self-representation in a criminal case is conditioned upon a voluntary knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to be represented by counsel”) and that Chapman has properly asserted his right to represent himself,  and the court concluding that “a defendant must be allowed to represent him/herself when a proper request is made and counsel is waived ” Buhl, 233 F.3d at 791 (citing Faretta v California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)) and the court noting that it “may terminate self-representation by a defendant who deliberately engages in serious obstructionist misconduct, ” Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n.46, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Chapman’s correspondence (Docs 22-23) are CONSTRUED as a formal motion to dismiss counsel and proceed pro se and are GRANTED as so construed
2. The appointment of D Toni Byrd Esquire (“Attorney Byrd”) as counsel for Chapman in the above-captioned criminal proceeding is TERMINATED.
3. Chapman is permitted to proceed pro se in this matter.
4. Attorney Byrd is directed to provide Chapman with the file in the above-captioned matter forthwith.
5. Attorney Byrd is APPOINTED as standby counsel for Chapman See McKaskle v Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984); United States v Bertoli, 994 F.2d 1002 (3d Cir 1993)
6. Standby counsel shall be prepared to perform at least the following functions during trial:
a. Standby counsel must be available to provide assistance to defendant Bertoli, 994 F.2d at 1019.
b. Standby counsel must be prepared to conduct defendant’s case in the event he wishes to terminate his pro se status and the court grants the request Id; United States v Leveto, 540 F.3d 200, 207 (3d Cir. 2008).
c. Standby counsel must be prepared to explain the basic rules of court protocol and procedure to defendant Bertoli, 994 F.2d at 1019.
d. Standby counsel must be prepared to aid defendant in “overcom[ing] routine obstacles that may hinder effective pro se representation.” Id.
e. Standby counsel must be prepared to conduct defendant’s case in the event that the court terminates defendant’s pro se status due to deliberate or obstructionist misconduct. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n.46.