ARTHUR JAMES JULIUS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIE JOHNSON, WARDEN, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to act as co-counsel in a criminal case.
Appellant, an Alabama prisoner, filed a pro se complaint alleging a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation by being denied co-c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 9(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant is an Alabama prisoner under sentence of death. In July of 1984, he filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, alleging that his right of self-representation at his state court trial as protected by the Sixth Amendment had been violated. He requested his release as well as money damages. The magistrate treated the complaint as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Appellee moved to dismiss. After subsequent pleadings, the magistrate filed a recommendation that the petition be denied and that the case be dismissed. This recommendation was based upon the magistrate’s finding that appellant had asked only to act as co-counsel and that there was no federal constitutional right to act as co-counsel in a criminal case. The district court entered an order adopting the magistrate’s recommendation and denied relief. A timely notice of appeal was filed and the district court subsequently granted appellant’s application for a certificate of probable cause and granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We affirm.
Binding precedent in this Circuit, as the appellant concedes, forecloses this issue. See United States v. Zielie, 734 F. 2d 1447, 1454 (11th Cir.1984); Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F. 2d 803, 808-09 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Bowdach, 561 F. 2d 1160, 1176 (5th Cir.1977). As the court said in Bowdach:
Faretta [Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)], does not hold that a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to act as co-counsel, and we are not willing to extend the reach of the Sixth Amendment to include such a right. 561 F. 2d at 1176 (citation inserted). One panel of this Circuit cannot overrule another panel’s decision. United States v. Goll-witzer, 697 F. 2d 1357, 1360 n. 2 (11th Cir. 1983). That can only be done by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court.
Finally, we note that counsel was appointed to represent the appellant while this action was pending. Counsel moved to stay this action while he considered other possible grounds for federal habeas relief. The state objected to the stay but stipulated:
In view of the circumstances, especially petitioner’s initial pro se status, the state will not plead Rule 9(b) to any new and different claims contained in a second habeas petition filed by petitioner in the future. The state will only plead Rule 9(b) to this same co-counsel claim, if petitioner attempts to relitigate it in a future petition. (ROA 150)
With this stipulation, the judgment of the district court is affirmed without prejudice to petitioner seeking post-conviction relief within 180 days of the filing of this opinion, except for the relief denied by this affirmance of the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cooper v. S. Co., 390 F.3d 695 (11th Cir. 2004)…Circuit. We are bound to apply the standard outlined in Murray, since one panel of this Court cannot overrule another. That power is reserved only to the full Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc or to the United States Supreme Court. Julius v. Johnson, 755 F. 2d 1403, 1404 (11th Cir.1985). . The injunctive relief specified in the plaintiffs' Complaint consists of a request for "preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to end Defendants' discriminatory practices and to prevent current and future harm to the Na…
-
Cross v. United States, 893 F.2d 1287 (11th Cir. 1990)…ing with the assistance of his attorney. Rather, what he was seeking from the court was permission to act as co-counsel.11 This court has held repeatedly that an individual does not have a right to hy [*1292] brid representation. Julius v. Johnson, 755 F. 2d 1403, 1403-04 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Zielie, 734 F. 2d 1447, 1454 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1189, 105 S.Ct. 957, 83 L.Ed.2d 964 (1985); Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F. 2d 803, 808-09 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 966, 105…
-
Druid Hills Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. The Fed. Hwy. Admin., 772 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1985)…d still be bound by our decision in LES II. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc). Only this court sitting en banc or the United States Supreme Court can overrule precedent binding on this court. Julius v. Johnson, 755 F. 2d 1403, 1404 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam). . The district court concluded that loss of the Complex could constitute a truly unique or unusual factor. The court continued with the statement, “Thus, even if No-Build were prudent, the magnitude and uniquenes…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Chan Walker Zielie, 734 F.2d 1447 (11th Cir. 1984)
- Raulerson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 732 F.2d 803 (11th Cir. 1984)
- United States v. Gollwitzer, 697 F.2d 1357 (11th Cir. 1983)