Minnick v. Davis

40 F. App'x 248
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedJuly 1, 2002
DocketNo. 00-3460
StatusPublished

This text of 40 F. App'x 248 (Minnick v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Minnick v. Davis, 40 F. App'x 248 (7th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

By the Court En Banc.

Order

The guardian ad litem appointed by the district court in response to our order of May 23, 2002, has decided to reject the acts of the lawyers now purporting to represent Minnick. Accordingly, we relieve those lawyers of any further authority to represent Minnick, vacate the judgment of the district court, and remand for proceedings in which Minnick’s new counsel (to be selected and supervised on his behalf by the guardian ad litem) will be entitled to present a collateral attack on his conviction and sentence, advancing whatever contentions best serve Minnick’s current interests, including any arguments that may have become available under Atkins v. Vir-ginioi, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), and Ring v. Arizona, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). So that both sides may start afresh, Circuit Rule 36 will apply on remand.

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

Related

Atkins v. Virginia
536 U.S. 304 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 F. App'x 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minnick-v-davis-ca7-2002.