Elliott Williams v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and Dan Morales, Attorney General

Fifth Circuit

Elliott Williams v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and Dan Morales, Attorney General

12 F.3d 70, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 4350, 1994 WL 71550

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 9, 1994

Docket92-8567

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 F.3d 70 (Elliott Williams v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and Dan Morales, Attorney General) 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

Elliott Williams v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and Dan Morales, Attorney General, 12 F.3d 70, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 4350, 1994 WL 71550 (5th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and BLACK, 1 District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

We disposed of this appeal by reversing the grant of habeas relief and dismissing the habeas petition. On application for rehearing, Petitioner asks for a remand to permit the district court to address his claim that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. After finding the indictment insufficient, the district court did not reach the issue of effectiveness of counsel. We deny the application for rehearing except to the limited extent that it requests remand rather than dismissal. See Burley v. Bastrop Loan Co., 590 F.2d 160, 161 n. 3 (5th Cir.1979) (remanding for further proceedings on Plaintiffs alternative theory for summary judgment, after reversing summary judgment on the theory adopted by the district court).

APPLICATION DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART to the extent that petition for habeas relief is REMAND-' ED for further proceedings.

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and BLACK, 1 District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

We disposed of this appeal by reversing the grant of habeas relief and dismissing the habeas petition. On application for rehearing, Petitioner asks for a remand to permit the district court to address his claim that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. After finding the indictment insufficient, the district court did not reach the issue of effectiveness of counsel. We deny the application for rehearing except to the limited extent that it requests remand rather than dismissal. See Burley v. Bastrop Loan Co., 590 F.2d 160, 161 n. 3 (5th Cir.1979) (remanding for further proceedings on Plaintiffs alternative theory for summary judgment, after reversing summary judgment on the theory adopted by the district court).

APPLICATION DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART to the extent that petition for habeas relief is REMAND-' ED for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F.3d 70, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 4350, 1994 WL 71550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-williams-v-james-a-collins-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack