Wood v. Wainwright, 78-1652
| Decision Date | 02 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1652,78-1652 |
| Citation | 597 F.2d 1054 |
| Parties | William WOOD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., Tampa, Fla., court-appointed, for petitioner-appellant.
Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before GODBOLD, SIMPSON and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
This state habeas case was commenced May 2, 1977. Petitioner was granted leave to file IFP. The district court conducted evidentiary hearings, and we agree with that court that hearings were required. Despite petitioner's request, counsel was not appointed for him, and he represented himself at the hearings. Under Rule 8, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, the court was required to appoint counsel if petitioner qualified under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g). Rule 8 is applicable to cases commenced on or after February 11, 1977. Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 265, 98 S.Ct. 556, 561, 54 L.Ed.2d 521, 532 n.9 (1978).
The judgment is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for hearing with appointed counsel.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Watkins
...mandatory if a habeas petitioner qualifies under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A(g). Lamb v. Estelle, 667 F.2d 492 (5th Cir.1982); Wood v. Wainwright, 597 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir.1979). Since Bell had already been adjudged a pauper, and therefore was qualified under section 3006A(g) for the appointment of ......
-
Lamb v. Estelle, 80-2144
....... Appointment of counsel ... is mandatory .... (Rule 8(c) makes) the furnishing of counsel ... mandatory." In Wood v. Wainwright, 597 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir. 1979), we held that appointment of counsel is required if the petitioner qualifies under 18 U.S.C. § In the present case, Lamb execute......
-
Bashor v. Risley
...appointment of counsel becomes mandatory, when an evidentiary hearing is required. Rule 8, 28 U.S.C. foll. Sec. 2254; Wood v. Wainwright, 597 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir.1979). The district court concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not required. Appointment of counsel was, therefore, not manda......
-
Swazo v. Wyoming Dept. of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden, 93-8047
...F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.1984) (Sec. 2254); Alford v. United States, 709 F.2d 418, 423 (5th Cir.1983) (Sec. 2255); Wood v. Wainwright, 597 F.2d 1054, 1054 (5th Cir.1979) (Sec. 2254); see also 1976 Advisory Committee Note for Rule 8 of Rules Governing Sec. 2254 Cases. "If an evidentiary hear......