United States v. Carroll Griffin

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 5, 2019
Docket18-30881
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Carroll Griffin (United States v. Carroll Griffin) 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
United States v. Carroll Griffin, (5th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

Case: 18-30881 Document: 00514984090 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 18-30881 FILED Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARROLL GRIFFIN, also known as Junny, also known as GWAUP,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:18-CV-79

Before SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carroll Griffin, federal prisoner # 19523-035, moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, alleging that counsel was ineffective in failing to file a direct appeal on his behalf. The district court denied the motion following an evidentiary hearing. Griffin now challenges the district court’s failure to appoint counsel to represent him at that hearing.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-30881 Document: 00514984090 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2019

No. 18-30881

Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings required the district court to appoint Griffin counsel for the evidentiary hearing because he was unable to afford retained counsel. See United States v. Vasquez, 7 F.3d 81, 84 (5th Cir. 1993). Griffin’s motion for a COA is therefore GRANTED. The district court’s judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for a new evidentiary hearing with appointed counsel.

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

Related

United States v. Vasquez
7 F.3d 81 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Carroll Griffin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carroll-griffin-ca5-2019.