Order — No. 3:22-cr-00141 (Dkt. 47, N.D. Miss.)

Summary

An order in United States v. LaKeith M. Faulkner, No. 3:22-CR-141, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, filed June 30, 2023 as Doc. 47 (3 pages) and signed by Judge Debra M. Brown. It grants attorney Brandon I. Dorsey's motion to withdraw as counsel of record [46], filed after the defendant's May 24 sentencing, finding the attorney-client relationship irretrievably broken because the defendant intends to appeal on ineffective assistance grounds. It also grants the defendant's pro se request [45] to file a pro se motion for appointed counsel, directs the Clerk to send him a CJA-23 financial affidavit, and requires the motion to state the bases for his claim.

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

Cite this document

“Order — No. 3:22-cr-00141 (Dkt. 47, N.D. Miss.).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-no-3-22-cr-00141-dkt-47-n-d-miss-b23530587b/, SHA-256 38e234e7c5dc2c5d31189ef112a3c2e8894b2c84a3aee5ee6237d6ad6ea72d4e.

Full text

Case: 3:22-cr-00141-DMB-RP Doc #: 47 Filed: 06/30/23 1 of 3 PageID #: 227

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V. NO. 3:22-CR-141

LAKEITH M. FAULKNER

ORDER

On June 22, 2023, Brandon I. Dorsey filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record for

LaKeith M. Faulkner. 1 Doc. #46. As cause, Dorsey represents that after Faulkner’s May 24

sentencing:

That on or about June 2, 2023, [he] received a certain e - mail correspondence of
and from [Faulkner] communicating a desire to pursue an “appeal” alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel. Subsequent thereto, a telephone conversation
ensued and [Faulkner] asked [him] to “FILE” the appropriate “motion” seeking
authority to withdraw as counsel of record in these premises.

That based upon said representation, the attorney - client relationship that existed
of and between [Faulkner] and [him] is irretrievably broken. In addition, thereto,
the contractual relationship that memorialized the afore referenced attorney - client
relationship DOES NOT extend to obligations associated with pursuing “appellate”
/ “post trial” relief as such appellate / post trial professional services would
necessitate the entry of a subsequent arrangement.

Id. at ¶¶ 9–10 (paragraph numbering omitted). Attached to the motion as an exhibit is a “Joinder

to Motion to Withdraw and Other Relief” signed and dated by Faulkner on June 12, 2023. Doc.

#46-1. Faulkner, pro se, filed as a separate motion on the docket the same joinder along with

additional documents in support of the joinder. Doc. #45. In the joinder he separately filed,

Faulkner confirms his intent to pursue appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel and also

asks that he “be allowed to act as pro se to file a Motion … for a court-appointed attorney

1
The motion is titled, “First Amended Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record and Other Relief.” Doc. #46 at 1.
As the motion states, Dorsey’s earlier motion to withdraw was denied without prejudice because it was “not signed
by Faulkner and … [did] not appear to have been duly noticed to Faulkner ….” Id. at 2 (citing June 5, 2023, order).
Case: 3:22-cr-00141-DMB-RP Doc #: 47 Filed: 06/30/23 2 of 3 PageID #: 228

accompanied by the CJA23 Financial Affidavit to assist [him] with [his] appeal or seek this

Court’s determination to be appointed an attorney without said motion.” Id. at PageID 214.

Local Criminal Rule 44.1 provides that the “[a]dmission and conduct of attorneys in

criminal cases shall be governed by Rule 83.1 of The Uniform Local Civil Rules.” Local Civil

Rule 83.1 provides:

When an attorney enters an appearance in a civil action, he or she must remain as
counsel of record until released by formal order of the court. An attorney may be
released only on motion signed by the client(s) or upon a duly noticed motion to all
parties, including the client and presented to the judicial officer to whom the case
is assigned, together with a proposed order authorizing counsel’s withdrawal.

L.U. Civ. R. 83.1(b)(3).

Given that (1) the motion to withdraw was filed less than a month after Faulkner’s

sentencing (and approximately three weeks after Dorsey noticed an appeal on Faulkner’s behalf);

(2) the attorney-client relationship between Dorsey and Faulkner is indeed irretrievably broken

since Faulkner intends to pursue appeal based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel by

Dorsey and since, according to Faulkner, communications between him and Dorsey have greatly

diminished, if not ceased; 2 (3) Faulkner does not challenge Dorsey’s withdrawal; and (4) the Court

is unaware of any other matter which would preclude Dorsey’s withdrawal, Dorsey’s motion to

withdraw [46] is GRANTED. Dorsey is WITHDRAWN as counsel for Faulkner in this case.

As for Faulkner’s pro se request to file a pro se motion seeking the appointment of counsel,

Faulkner’s request [45] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to send to Faulkner a CJA-

23 financial affidavit form. 3 Any pro se motion filed by Faulkner requesting the appointment of

counsel must not only include a completed CJA-23 financial affidavit but also state the specific

2
See Doc. #45 at PageID 216–17.
3
The Court presumes Faulkner’s current mailing address is that contained in the certificate of service attached to
Dorsey’s motion. See Doc. #46 at 3.

2
Case: 3:22-cr-00141-DMB-RP Doc #: 47 Filed: 06/30/23 3 of 3 PageID #: 229

bases for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

SO ORDERED, this 30th day of June, 2023.

/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

File and source

File: 47.pdf
Size: 138,402 bytes
SHA-256: 38e234e7c5dc2c5d31189ef112a3c2e8894b2c84a3aee5ee6237d6ad6ea72d4e
Our copy: 47.pdf
Original: archive.org