Duane Buck v. William Stephens, Director

Fifth Circuit

Duane Buck v. William Stephens, Director

865 F.3d 215, 2017 WL 1360773

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 2017

Docket14-70030

StatusPublished

This text of 865 F.3d 215 (Duane Buck v. William Stephens, Director) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duane Buck v. William Stephens, Director, 865 F.3d 215, 2017 WL 1360773 (5th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This court denied a certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”) to review the denial of petitioner Duane Buck’s motion, filed per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), claiming violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Buck v. Stephens, 623 Fed.Appx. 668 (5th Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, Buck v. Davis, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 759, 780, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 *216 (2017), “concluding] that Buck has demonstrated both ineffective assistance of counsel ... and an entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b)(6)” and that this court “erred in denying Buck the COA required to pursue those claims on appeal.” On remand, we requested briefing on what action this court should take. Helpfully, the parties submitted a joint letter brief, agreeing on what action is appropriate.

There are no remaining matters requiring resolution by this court or the district court except as set forth below. The motion for a COA is GRANTED. The judgment is VACATED in regard to ineffective assistance of counsel at the punishment phase. This matter is REMANDED with direction to grant, conditionally, a writ of habeas corpus and to direct the respondent to release petitioner from, custody unless, within 180 days of the date of the district court’s order on remand, the state either (1) initiates proceeding for a new trial on the issue of punishment only, per Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 44.29(c), or (2) elects not to seek the death penalty and accedes to a life sentence.

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

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This court denied a certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”) to review the denial of petitioner Duane Buck’s motion, filed per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), claiming violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Buck v. Stephens, 623 Fed.Appx. 668 (5th Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, Buck v. Davis, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 759, 780, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 *216 (2017), “concluding] that Buck has demonstrated both ineffective assistance of counsel ... and an entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b)(6)” and that this court “erred in denying Buck the COA required to pursue those claims on appeal.” On remand, we requested briefing on what action this court should take. Helpfully, the parties submitted a joint letter brief, agreeing on what action is appropriate.

There are no remaining matters requiring resolution by this court or the district court except as set forth below. The motion for a COA is GRANTED. The judgment is VACATED in regard to ineffective assistance of counsel at the punishment phase. This matter is REMANDED with direction to grant, conditionally, a writ of habeas corpus and to direct the respondent to release petitioner from, custody unless, within 180 days of the date of the district court’s order on remand, the state either (1) initiates proceeding for a new trial on the issue of punishment only, per Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 44.29(c), or (2) elects not to seek the death penalty and accedes to a life sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

865 F.3d 215, 2017 WL 1360773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duane-buck-v-william-stephens-director-ca5-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack