Duane W. Sanders v. Harold W. Clarke, Warden, Nebraska State Prison

Eighth Circuit

Duane W. Sanders v. Harold W. Clarke, Warden, Nebraska State Prison

867 F.2d 488, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 1759, 1989 WL 11534

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided February 16, 1989·No. 87-2197·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. Sanders v. Clarke, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 831, 102 L.Ed.2d 964 (1989). We are instructed to consider the case further in light of Penson v. Ohio, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).

Having studied Penson, we conclude that our previous analysis on the question of prejudice cannot stand. We adhere, however, to our determination on the prior appeal that the conduct of court-appointed counsel for Sanders did not comply with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The Supreme Court’s opinion in Penson supports this portion of our opinion.

We believe the most expeditious way to advance the final determination of this case is to remand it to the District Court for further consideration in light of Penson, this order, and Evans v. Clarke, 868 F.2d 267 (8th Cir.1989), an opinion in which the relationship between Penson and the present case is explored at some length.

This cause is remanded to the District Court for further consideration as indicated in this opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. Sanders v. Clarke, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 831, 102 L.Ed.2d 964 (1989). We are instructed to consider the case further in light of Penson v. Ohio, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).

Having studied Penson, we conclude that our previous analysis on the question of prejudice cannot stand. We adhere, however, to our determination on the prior appeal that the conduct of court-appointed counsel for Sanders did not comply with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The Supreme Court’s opinion in Penson supports this portion of our opinion.

We believe the most expeditious way to advance the final determination of this case is to remand it to the District Court for further consideration in light of Penson, this order, and Evans v. Clarke, 868 F.2d 267 (8th Cir.1989), an opinion in which the relationship between Penson and the present case is explored at some length.

This cause is remanded to the District Court for further consideration as indicated in this opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Duane W. Sanders v. Harold W. Clarke, Warden, Nebraska State Prison, 867 F.2d 488, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 1759, 1989 WL 11534 (8th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

867 F.2d 488 (Duane W. Sanders v. Harold W. Clarke, Warden, Nebraska State Prison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related