Warren Eugene Bridge v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent

Fifth Circuit

Warren Eugene Bridge v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent

863 F.2d 370, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 696, 1989 WL 95

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 4, 1989

Docket88-2855

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 863 F.2d 370 (Warren Eugene Bridge v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent) 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

Warren Eugene Bridge v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent, 863 F.2d 370, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 696, 1989 WL 95 (5th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM:

We have rejected Bridge’s claims for a writ of habeas corpus. We were persuaded in the late hour that in fairness we ought to rest our decision there. We remain convinced that we were correct in our original decision, but with the fullness of time, we are now persuaded that our denial should rest on the absence of legal cause for Bridge’s failure to raise the “Franklin” issue at trial. See Franklin v. Lynaugh, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 221, 98 L.Ed.2d 180 (1987); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Selvage v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 89 (5th Cir.1988). To the extent they are contrary, our earlier writings are withdrawn.

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

ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM:

We have rejected Bridge’s claims for a writ of habeas corpus. We were persuaded in the late hour that in fairness we ought to rest our decision there. We remain convinced that we were correct in our original decision, but with the fullness of time, we are now persuaded that our denial should rest on the absence of legal cause for Bridge’s failure to raise the “Franklin” issue at trial. See Franklin v. Lynaugh, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 221, 98 L.Ed.2d 180 (1987); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Selvage v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 89 (5th Cir.1988). To the extent they are contrary, our earlier writings are withdrawn.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

863 F.2d 370, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 696, 1989 WL 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-eugene-bridge-v-james-a-lynaugh-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack