Watson v. United States
| Decision Date | 16 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 13796.,No. 13815.,No. 83-1150.,No. 83-996.,13796.,13815.,83-996.,83-1150. |
| Citation | 514 A.2d 800 |
| Parties | Curtis Lee WATSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. Curtis Lee WATSON, Appellant, v. James F. PALMER, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before PRYOR, Chief Judge; NEBEKER, MACK, NEWMAN, FERREN, BELSON, TERRY,* ROGERS and STEADMAN, Associate Judges.
On consideration of appellant's petition for rehearing en banc, the response thereto indicating that the United States agrees that en banc rehearing should be granted, and it appearing that the majority of the judges of this court has voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc, it is
ORDERED that appellant's petition for rehearing en banc is granted and that the opinion and judgment of April 8, 1986, 508 A.2d 75, are hereby vacated. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the parties, on or before October 17, 1986, shall file supplemental memoranda on the question of whether Watson was denied due process through the performance of counsel on appeal. See Rose v. Clark, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986), Smith v. Murray, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986), Murray v. Carrier, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986), and Kimmelman v. Morrison, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). The Clerk shall schedule these cases for argument before the court sitting en banc on the November calendar. Counsel are hereby directed to provide ten copies of the briefs heretofore filed to the Clerk on or before September 29, 1986.
* Associate Judge Terry has recused from participating in these cases.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amin v. State
...to recall mandate as attacking appellate counsel performance. Watson v. United States, 508 A.2d 75, reh'g granted and judgment vacated 514 A.2d 800 (1986), reh'g 536 A.2d 1056 (D.C.App.1987), cert. denied 486 U.S. 1010, 108 S.Ct. 1740, 100 L.Ed.2d 203 (1988). Cf. State v. Williamson, 206 Co......
-
Watson v. U.S.
...was heard previously before a division of this court, (Watson v. United States, 508 A.2d 75 (D.C.), reh'g granted, judgment vacated, 514 A.2d 800 (D.C. 1986)), and when the court decided to hear the case en banc, the opinion of the hearing division was automatically vacated in accordance wi......
-
Cutbirth v. State
...the test found in Watson v. United States, 508 A.2d 75 (D.C.App.1986). Watson v. United States, supra, was vacated by Watson v. United States, 514 A.2d 800 (D.C.App.1986), and the case then was heard en banc. In a plurality decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Co......
-
Fireison v. Pearson
...U.S.App. D.C. at 332, 463 F.2d at 278; see also Watson v. United States, 508 A.2d 75, 81, en banc reh'g granted and vacated en bane mem., 514 A.2d 800, argued en banc Nov. 6, 1986 (D.C. 1986); Bell v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 507 A.2d 548, 549 (D.C. 1986); Streater v. United States, 478......