Joe Billy Toles v. Mr. C.E. Jones (Warden) and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama
This text of 951 F.2d 1200 (Joe Billy Toles v. Mr. C.E. Jones (Warden) and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama) 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.
Opinions
After this case was argued to the en banc court, the Supreme Court decided Coleman v. Thompson, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), holding that ineffective assistance of counsel in state collateral review proceedings could not constitute “cause” excusing a procedural default.
The issue that justified consideration of this case by the entire court has now been decided by the Supreme Court. The other issues in the case, while important to the litigants, are not issues of a kind justifying consideration by the court en banc. See 11th Cir.R. 35-3. It is, therefore,
ORDERED that the order that this case be reheard en banc, 905 F.2d 346, is RESCINDED and the panel opinion, 888 F.2d 95, is REINSTATED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
951 F.2d 1200, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 916, 1992 WL 2229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joe-billy-toles-v-mr-ce-jones-warden-and-the-attorney-general-of-the-ca11-1992.