Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
William v. Luna v. Steven Cambra, Jr., Warden Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General
311 F.3d 928
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2002-11-27
- Topic
- bankruptcy
How later courts describe this case
- remanding “with instructions to issue the writ of habeas corpus, unless California elects, within 90 days of the issuance of the mandate, to retry [petitioner],” adding that “[a]ny such retrial shall commence within a reasonable time thereafter”
- counsel’s failure to interview and subpoena alibi witnesses left defendant’s alibi uncorroborated, prejudicing the outcome of the trial
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed William v. Luna v. Steven Cambra, Jr., Warden Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 35 opinions
ORDER
The mandate is recalled and the opinion filed September 27, 2002 [306 F.3d 954], is amended as follows:
The last sentence of the opinion which reads:
We thus remand this case to the District Court with instructions to issue the writ of habeas corpus, unless California elects to retry Luna within 90 days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case.
is amended to read as follows:
We thus remand this case to the District Court with instructions to issue the writ of habeas corpus, unless California elects, within 90 days of the issuance of the mandate, to retry Luna. Any such retrial shall commence within a reasonable time thereafter to be set by the District Court.
The mandate is to reissue forthwith.