Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Limmie West, III v. State of Louisiana

510 F.2d 363

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1975-03-24
Topic
general

waiver based on dual grounds of state’s failure to raise the issue, and delay of state proceedings | obligation of a federal judge is to apply proper federal constitutional standards based on underlying facts even though the federal court’s conclusions may differ from the state court’s conclusions

Citator

Cited by
48 opinions
WEST, III, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA,510 F.2d 363(5th Cir. 1975)
LIMMIE WEST, III, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-1338.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 24, 1975.
Wm. J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen. of La., Baton Rouge, La., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., New Orleans, La., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Louise Korns, Shirley G. Wimberly, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.

Limmie West, III, pro se.

George M. Leppert, New Orleans, La. (Court appointed), for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Alvin B. Rubin, Judge.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and RIVES, WISDOM, GEWIN, BELL, THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, DYER, SIMPSON, MORGAN, CLARK, RONEY and GEE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] We took this case and Fitzgerald v. Estelle, 5 Cir. 1974,505 F.2d 1334en banc "to resolve the constitutional standards which govern adjudication of claims of ineffectual assistance of privately retained counsel."Id.at 1335.

[2] Having explicated the standards inFitzgerald,we vacate Part III and adhere to and affirm Parts I, II and IV of the panel opinion of this Court. West v. States of Louisiana, 5 Cir. 1973,478 F.2d 1026.

[3] The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the alleged ineffective assistance of privately retained counsel in the light ofFitzgerald.
[4] RONEY, Circuit Judge (specially concurring):
[5] I concur in the en banc vacation and remand of the district court's judgment for reconsideration in the light of Fitzgerald v. Estelle,505 F.2d 1334(5th Cir. 1974) (en banc). I do not concur in affirmance of Part II of the panel opinion, West v. Louisiana,478 F.2d 1026(5th Cir. 1973), which indicates that the district court may decide this case without an evidentiary hearing. As indicated in my dissent to the panel opinion, 478 F.2d at pp. 1035-1037, I would call for a full development of the facts and at the very least, a review of the state trial record by the district court. I doubt that the district court can give adequate reconsideration to this case under theFitzgeraldprinciples without an evidentiary hearing. I would not indicate otherwise by affirmance of Part II of the panel opinion. I agree with the en banc majority that Parts I and IV are correct as written in the panel opinion.
[6] RIVES, Circuit Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
[7] I concur in the affirmance of Parts I, II and IV of the panel opinion, but respectfully dissent both from the vacation of Part III of the panel opinion and from the vacation of the judgment of the District Court.Page 542