Order — United States v. Schaefer (Dkt. 68, S.D. Ohio)

Summary

An order by United States District Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. in United States of America v. Lorie A. Schaefer, Case No. 2:24-cr-29(1), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, dated October 23, 2024. It addresses the defendant's motions to withdraw her financial report and to withdraw her plea agreement and guilty plea (ECF No. 63), in which she states that new information from discovery requires corrections. The order notes that the motions are handwritten and signed by the defendant, construes them as pro se motions, and states that because she has been represented by counsel since August 2023, such motions must come from counsel. It strikes the motions from the docket and states that the case remains open.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case: 2:24-cr-00029-EAS Doc #: 68 Filed: 10/23/24 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 373




                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                                  EASTERN DIVISION

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                Plaintiff,
                                                       Case No. 2:24-cr-29(1)
        v.
                                                       JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

 LORIE A. SCHAEFER,
                  Defendant.


                                             ORDER

       This matter is before the Court on Defendant Lorie Schaefer’s “Motion to Withdrawal [sic]

Financial Report” and “Motion to Withdrawal [sic] Plea Agreement and Guilty Plea.” (ECF No.

63.) In her Motion to Withdrawal Financial Report, Defendant advises that she received new

information through discovery that was not considered when writing her financial report, and so

she wants to withdraw that report. (Id. PageID 310.) She makes similar arguments in her Motion

to Withdrawal Plea Agreement and Guilty Plea—she states that new information revealed through

discovery necessitates “corrections and adjustments” to her plea agreement. (Id. PageID 311.) Both

Motions are handwritten and signed by Defendant. (Id.) The Court therefore construes these filing

as pro se Motions. Defendant is and has been represented by counsel since August 2023, and any

such motion properly comes from her counsel.

       “Although a criminal defendant has a constitutionally protected right to present [her] own

defense in addition to a constitutionally protected right to be represented by counsel, [s]he has no

right to hybrid representation.” United States v. Flowers, 428 F. App’x 526, 530 (6th Cir. 2011)

(citing United States v. Cromer, 389 F.3d 662, 680 (6th Cir. 2004); 28 U.S.C. § 1654). The Court

will not consider pro se arguments where the defendant is represented by counsel. See United

   Case: 2:24-cr-00029-EAS Doc #: 68 Filed: 10/23/24 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 374




States v. Degroat, No. 97-CR-20004-DT-1, 2009 WL 891699, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2009)

(striking the defendant’s pro se motion because, where defendant was represented by counsel, “all

filings must be made by the attorney of record”).

       Accordingly, Defendant’s Motions (ECF No. 63) are STRICKEN from the docket. This

case remains open.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.


10/23/2024                                     s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE                                           EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
                                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                                2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ohsd.289735.68.0.pdf

Size

135,140 bytes

SHA-256

a6ac68af204fc4c264a7be62bfd785bb13cddc2b89fb4bd2ffe35787957ed802

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ohsd.289735.68.0.pdf

Original

archive.org