United States Sixth Circuit

District court's grant of defendant's untimely Rule 33 motion for a new trial following his conviction for drug related offenses, but before sentencing after obtaining a new counsel, is reversed as, although the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant's untimely filing of his Rule 33 motion was the result of excusable neglect, defendant's former trial counsel's assistance more than met the minimum standard required by the Sixth Amendment.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/02/2010
• Decided 05/18/2010
• Published 05/18/2010

Judges

• Before BOGGS and NORRIS, Circuit Judges; ADAMS, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:Perry H. Piper, Assistant United States Attorney, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. Martha M. Hall, Law Offices of Martha M. Hall, San Diego, California, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Scott A. Winne, Assistant United States Attorney, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. Martha M. Hall, Law Offices of Martha M. Hall, San Diego, California, for Appellee.