United States v. Johnson

308 F. App'x 768
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 26, 2009
Docket06-60303
StatusUnpublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 308 F. App'x 768 (United States v. Johnson) 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. Johnson, 308 F. App'x 768 (5th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Andre Jordan Johnson, federal prisoner # 14891-076, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, arguing that his appellate counsel did not inform him of his right to seek certiorari in the Supreme Court after we affirmed his sentence on appeal. See United States v. Johnson, 253 F.3d 706 (5th Cir.2001) (unpublished). We ordered a limited remand to the district court for fact finding solely on the question of whether Thompson advised Johnson of *769 his right to seek a writ of certiorari. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, at which Johnson and Thompson both testified, the district court determined that Thompson never informed Johnson in writing of his right to seek Supreme Court review.

Under this court’s Plan for Representation on Appeal Under the Criminal Justice Act (the CJA Plan), “[promptly after the court of appeals decision issues, appointed counsel must advise the client in writing of the right to seek further review by filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.” CJA Plan, § 6, H4. This court has previously granted § 2255 relief on claims that appellate counsel failed to advise a defendant of his ability to seek certiorari review from the Supreme Court. See Lacaze v. United States, 457 F.2d 1075, 1076 (5th Cir.1972); Ordonez v. United States, 588 F.2d 448, 449 (5th Cir.1979). In light of the district court’s determination that Thompson did not inform Johnson in writing of his right to seek Supreme Court review, we recall our mandate in Johnson’s direct criminal appeal, cited above, and direct the issuance of a new mandate affirming our prior affir-mance of the judgment of conviction. Johnson is hereby advised of his renewed right to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari to review this court’s affirmance of his direct appeal. Since Johnson has proceeded without counsel in this in forma pauperis appeal, we also order appointment of counsel to assist him in the prosecution of his petition for certiorari.

The original judgment of this court on direct appeal is VACATED, a new judgment is ENTERED reaffirming the judgment of conviction, and counsel for Johnson is ORDERED to be appointed.

*

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.

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

Related

United States v. Gerardo Garcia
607 F. App'x 438 (Fifth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Jackson
Fifth Circuit, 2011
United States v. Fernandez
397 F. App'x 433 (Tenth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
308 F. App'x 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-johnson-ca5-2009.