Professional background
This page’s dated record identifies the professional role involved. An independent official career biography was not located in the sources checked.
Source check: October 4, 2026. Career facts and public feedback are separate from the allegations and evidence discussed in the dated record.
Rate or discuss this profile — share a firsthand experience, disagreement or sourced correction.
What the Record Establishes
- His office moved to withdraw. His client moved to vacate the appointment. The court denied both — which makes every motion the court invited a motion only this office can file.
What They Have Not Produced
- Whether a motion to stay has been filed on the appellant’s behalf since July 31, 2026.
- What written response, if any, was given to the demand letter’s August 17 deadline.
- When and by what means the August 7 order was first received by this office.
The Power This Office Actually Holds
A Deputy Defender supervises appellate representation of indigent defendants in a judicial district. Appointed appellate counsel controls what is filed in the reviewing court on the client’s behalf: the record is ordered through counsel, briefs are filed by counsel, and — where a court has restricted a represented party from filing personally — counsel is the only channel that remains open.
- Directs appellate representation for indigent appellants in the Second District
- Orders the record on appeal and controls what is filed on the client’s behalf
- Is the only filing channel available to a client the court has barred from filing personally
- Owes duties of diligence, communication and reasonable promptness under Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 3.2
This is the narrowest and most consequential page in the August chapter, because it is the one that is not about an adversary. This office is the appellant’s lawyer. It asked to be relieved and was refused. That is an uncomfortable position for any advocate and the record shows it plainly.
What the court said, and to whom
The July 31 order denied the appellant’s motions “without prejudice to any motion filed by his counsel, including a motion to stay.” The court named the motion. It addressed the naming to counsel. When a court bars a party from filing and then identifies a motion that counsel may bring, the client’s access to that relief runs entirely through his lawyer.
What the State represented, under verification
Paragraph 14 of the August 5 objection states that OSAD counsel “explicitly confirmed their willingness to seek the relief they may ethically pursue: a stay on the circuit court’s June 17, 2026 order.” That is the State’s verified representation about this office, filed in the reviewing court.
What the record does not establish
Whether any stay motion has been filed. Whether any was prepared. What communications passed between counsel and client after August 10. This page does not assume the answers and does not allege that any duty was breached — it identifies the interval, publishes the letter that asks, and prints the deadline the letter set.
The compliance that runs the other way
The August 13 letter to this office was copied only to OSAD addresses, and expressly not to appellee’s counsel or the State’s Attorney, because the July 31 order forbids it. The letter says so in its own recipient block. A client operating under a communication bar wrote to his lawyer and to no one the order excluded.
The Documented Chronology
- July 31, 2026
The Second District appoints OSAD and bars the appellant from filing personally.
- August 4, 2026
OSAD files its own motion to discharge appointed counsel, with a cover letter to the appellant.
- August 5, 2026
The State’s verified objection states that OSAD counsel confirmed willingness to seek a stay of the June 17 order.
- August 7, 2026
The court denies the withdrawal and denies vacatur; the appointment stands.
- August 10, 3:17 p.m.
He transmits the order and writes that the office “will continue to be the attorney on your case.”
- August 11, 2026
The court fixes the record on appeal for September 24, 2026.
- August 13, 2026
A demand letter asks for a written response by 5:00 p.m. on August 17, 2026.
Still Not Produced
Each of these records exists inside a government system. Each has been requested. None has been supplied.
- Whether a motion to stay has been filed on the appellant’s behalf since July 31, 2026.
- What written response, if any, was given to the demand letter’s August 17 deadline.
- When and by what means the August 7 order was first received by this office.
If any of it is produced, or if Christopher M. McCoy disputes a documented fact on this page, the response will be published here in full, with its date. Read the correction standard.
Follow the same record into the next office
Every named official → · The investigation behind this dossier → · Add context or rate this profile →