Donald O. Coe v. Otis Thurman, Warden

Good Law
90 Daily Journal DAR 14677·922 F.2d 528·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 2651·90 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9386
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 15, 199190-55128California4,288 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

Donald Coe, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Coe claims that he has been denied due process of law by the failure of the California Court of Appeal to review his conviction in a timely and effective manner. He also claims that he has been denied effective assistance of counsel. We agree that the excessive delay in this case has violated his right to due process, and we therefore remand to the district court with instructions for it to enter an order directing the California Court of Appeal to hear his appeal within 90 days or release him.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In February 1987, Donald Coe was convicted in a jury trial of one count of conspiracy and nine counts of burglary and sentenced to a ten-year prison term. On March 5, 1987, he filed a timely Notice of Appeal in the California Court of Appeal, Second District. Appellate counsel John Rodriguez was appointed two weeks later. The delay that is the issue in this case then commenced because of the unavailability of the trial transcript. Continued delay caused by general court backlog and exacerbated by court reporters’ involvement in the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.