Curtis Echols v. A.G. Thomas

Eleventh Circuit

Curtis Echols v. A.G. Thomas

62 F.3d 344, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24147, 1995 WL 472355

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 25, 1995

Docket92-8981

StatusPublished

This text of 62 F.3d 344 (Curtis Echols v. A.G. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curtis Echols v. A.G. Thomas, 62 F.3d 344, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24147, 1995 WL 472355 (11th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Lee Echols, Jr., a Georgia prisoner, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denying his petition for habe-as corpus relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Echols contends that the life sentences imposed upon him in state court were not authorized by state law and that his court-appointed attorney was ineffective for failing to so advise him or to challenge their imposition. Because Echols’ attacks on his sentences turned on an unanswered question of Georgia law, we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia:

WERE THE LIFE SENTENCES IMPOSED BY THE DOUGLAS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AUTHORIZED BY THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE AT THE TIME OF ECHOLS’ SENTENCING?

Echols v. Thomas, 33 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir.1994). 1

The Georgia Supreme Court has now answered that question in the affirmative. Echols v. Thomas, 265 Ga. 474, 458 S.E.2d 100 (1995). In view of the.holding of the state’s highest court that Echols was legally subject to the life sentences exacted in the trial court, the district court properly denied relief both on his statutory claim and his assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

1

. Our earlier opinion contains a more detailed statement of the relevant facts and proceedings, which need not be repeated here.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Lee Echols, Jr., a Georgia prisoner, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denying his petition for habe-as corpus relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Echols contends that the life sentences imposed upon him in state court were not authorized by state law and that his court-appointed attorney was ineffective for failing to so advise him or to challenge their imposition. Because Echols’ attacks on his sentences turned on an unanswered question of Georgia law, we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia:

WERE THE LIFE SENTENCES IMPOSED BY THE DOUGLAS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AUTHORIZED BY THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE AT THE TIME OF ECHOLS’ SENTENCING?

Echols v. Thomas, 33 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir.1994). 1

The Georgia Supreme Court has now answered that question in the affirmative. Echols v. Thomas, 265 Ga. 474, 458 S.E.2d 100 (1995). In view of the.holding of the state’s highest court that Echols was legally subject to the life sentences exacted in the trial court, the district court properly denied relief both on his statutory claim and his assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

1

. Our earlier opinion contains a more detailed statement of the relevant facts and proceedings, which need not be repeated here.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 F.3d 344, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24147, 1995 WL 472355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-echols-v-ag-thomas-ca11-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack