Opinion ID: 1846260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: whether the office of the district attorney should have been disqualified from prosecuting this case.

Text: ¶ 178. Kolberg next asserts that he filed a motion to disqualify the Office of the District Attorney. According to Kolberg, this motion was sealed by the trial court to protect the District Attorney, and that a hearing should have been held. Further, he asserts that we have this sealed motion. However, after careful review of the entire contents of Kolberg's records and pleadings to us, we have found no such sealed motion. With no motion, we have no facts, inasmuch as he asserts they are set forth in great detail in the sealed motion. Therefore, there is nothing presented to us for consideration. ¶ 179. Next, Kolberg's expresses a grievance with his motion for equitable plea bargain. There was evidently no hearing on this motion, and consequently, this issue is deemed waived for the same reasons as discussed above ([I]t is the responsibility of the movant to obtain a ruling from the court on motions filed by him and a failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the same. Rushing v. State, 711 So.2d 450, 456 (Miss.1998) (other citations omitted)). Kolberg does not refute this in his reply brief. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.