Johnson v. Avery

3 Citing briefs

  1. CHAMPION (STEVE ALLEN) ON H.C.

    Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Response Brief re Referee’s Report

    Filed July 23, 2010

    Numerous federal decisions have held that the °” Unlike the federal andstate constitutionally protected right to effective assistance of counselatthe trial stage, petitioner has no ‘ constitutional right to counsel in a state collateral proceeding, even one which is a capital case, and afortiori, no right to effective assistance of counsel at such collateral proceeding. (Murray v. Giarratano (1989) 492 U.S. 1, 3-10 [109 S.Ct. 2765, 2767-2771, 106 L.Ed.2d 1]; Johnson v. Avery (1969) 393 U.S. 483, 488 [89 S.Ct. 747, 750; 21 L.Ed.2d 718]; see also Coleman v. Thompson (1991) 501 U.S. 722, 752 [111 S.Ct. 2546, 2568, 115 L.Ed.2d 640] [no right to counsel beyondfirst appeals as a matter of right].) Given that the purpose for ancillary services to trial counsel is to protect a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counselat trial, a right not available to petitioner in this reference hearing, it is not clear that the same standards applicableto trial level funding for ancillary services necessarily would apply to review funding decisions in the case subjudice whether madeby the referee or this Court.

  2. USA v. Springer et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion

    Filed July 16, 2010

    III. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS NOT WARRANTED Defendant’s motion for writ of error coram nobis is a collateral attack on Defendant’s conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court has “never held that prisoners have a constitutional right to counsel when mounting collateral attacks upon their convictions, see Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 488 (1969).” Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987).

  3. ZUHAIR v. BUSH et al

    MOTION for Protective Order [noticed on 06/06/08 and CSO-approved]

    Filed June 9, 2008

    The Supreme Court “has constantly emphasized the fundamental importance of the writ of habeas corpus in our constitutional scheme” and “has steadfastly insisted that there is no higher duty than to maintain it unimpaired.” Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485, 89 S. Ct. 747, 21 L. Ed. 2d 718 (1969) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court has expressed its unwillingness, absent contrary direction by a higher court, “to take action that might conceivably dilute the Great Writ itself or impair its exercise.”