Defendant Cannot Collaterally Appeal Order Denying Self Representation

US v. Sueiro: Sueiro was charged with multiple child pornography counts and was headed for trial. Along the way, through “over a year of pretrial hearings,” he requested that he be able to represent himself. The district court, after a hearing, ultimately denied Sueiro’s request. He appealed that ruling, without waiting for conviction, sentencing, or a final judgment.

The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal. In general, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to hear appeals from “final decisions of the district court,” which, in criminal cases, means judgements entered after the imposition of sentence. A narrow potential exception is the collateral order doctrine, which allows for the collateral review of orders that conclusively resolves the issue, the issue is an important one separate from the merits of the case, and it is effectively unreviewable at a later time. Noting that this “is not a balancing test” and that “a trial court order must satisfy each condition,” the court concluded it did not apply to the district court’s denial of Sueiro’s request to represent himself. Disclaiming reliance on civil cases (in which a party can collaterally appeal an order denying their request at self representation), the court concluded that self-representation was not one of those limited orders that could not be reviewed after a final judgment, noting that if the court ultimately concludes that the district court erred in denying Sueiro’s motion it would be presumptively prejudicial.