From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Duarte-Higareda

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 19, 1995
68 F.3d 369 (9th Cir. 1995)

Summary

finding that courts must appoint counsel for indigent petitioners when evidentiary hearings are required

Summary of this case from United States v. Washington

Opinion

No. 94-55970.

Submitted to Motions Panel October 11, 1995

Decided October 19, 1995.

Julia Craig, Assistant United States Attorney, San Diego California plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

D.C. Nos. CV 93-1792-MLH, CR 91-408-MLH

Before: ROBERT R. BEEZER, DAVID R. THOMPSON and THOMAS G. NELSON, Circuit Judges


ORDER

Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts states that"[i]f an evidentiary hearing is required, the judge shall appoint counsel for [an indigent] movant. . . ." Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255 (emphasis added). All of the circuits that have discussed the issue agree that the rule makes the appointment of counsel mandatory when evidentiary hearings are required. See United States v. Vasquez, 7 F.3d 81, 84 (5th Cir. 1993) (indigent movant entitled to appointed counsel for evidentiary hearing on section 2255 motion); Rauter v. United States, 871 F.2d 693, 695 (7th Cir. 1989) (same). In addition, this court has held that the equivalent Rule Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 8(c), makes the appointment of counsel mandatory when evidentiary hearings are required. See Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984).

The district court ordered an evidentiary hearing here on appellant's section 2255 motion, but did not appoint counsel for appellant. Appellant was indigent at the time of his original trial. If appellant remained indigent at the time of the evidentiary hearing, the district court committed clear error in not appointing counsel to represent him at the evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly, the court grants appellee's motion for summary reversal and remands to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.

REVERSED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Duarte-Higareda

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 19, 1995
68 F.3d 369 (9th Cir. 1995)

finding that courts must appoint counsel for indigent petitioners when evidentiary hearings are required

Summary of this case from United States v. Washington

In United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369 (9th Cir. 1995), this court held that the district court erred in failing to appoint counsel to represent Duarte at the evidentiary hearing. Id. at 370.

Summary of this case from United States v. Duarte-Higareda

noting that "[a]ll of the circuits that have discussed the issue agree that [Rule 8(c)] makes the appointment of counsel mandatory when evidentiary hearings are required"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Townsend

stating that appointment of counsel is mandatory in Section 2254 and 2255 cases which require evidentiary hearings for indigent petitioners (citing Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts)

Summary of this case from Hearn v. Ryan
Case details for

U.S. v. Duarte-Higareda

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SERGIO DUARTE-HIGAREDA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 19, 1995

Citations

68 F.3d 369 (9th Cir. 1995)

Citing Cases

Wood v. United States

The Rules Governing Section § 2255 cases require appointment of counsel when an evidentiary hearing is…

West v. Adams

See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Knaubert, 791…