Julius v. Johnson, 84-7738
| Decision Date | 05 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-7738,84-7738 |
| Citation | 755 F.2d 1403 |
| Parties | Arthur James JULIUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie JOHNSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Thomas M. Goggans, Montgomery, Ala., for petitioner-appellant.
Edward Carnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Before VANCE, HENDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
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. Gollwitzer, 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,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur v. State
...willing to extend the reach of the Sixth Amendment to include such a right. "561 F.2d at 1176 (citation inserted)." Julius v. Johnson, 755 F.2d 1403, 1403-04 (11th Cir.1985). See also Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F.2d 803, 809 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 966, 105 S.Ct. 366, 83 L......
-
James v. American Intern. Recovery, Inc.
...sitting en banc or the United States Supreme Court can overrule precedent binding on this court.") (citing Julius v. Johnson, 755 F.2d 1403, 1404 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam)). Rather, where two circuit court decisions contain conflicting rules of law, this court is bound by both circuit de......
-
People v. Dennany
...United States v. Mosely, 810 F.2d 93, 97 (C.A.6, 1987), cert. den. 484 U.S. 841, 108 S.Ct. 129, 98 L.Ed.2d 87 (1987); Julius v. Johnson, 755 F.2d 1403 (C.A.11, 1985) (modified 854 F.2d 400 [1988], cert. den. 488 U.S. 960, 109 S.Ct. 404, 102 L.Ed.2d 392 (1988); United States v. Weisz, 718 F.......
-
State v. Bell
...United States v. Wolfish, 525 F.2d 457 (2nd Cir.1975); United States v. Norris, 780 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir.1986); Julius v. Johnson, 755 F.2d 1403 (11th Cir.1985); State v. McCabe, 420 So.2d 955 (La.1982); State v. Bodley, 394 So.2d 584 (La.1981). However, this principle has typically rested on......