Charles Rodman Campbell v. James Blodgett

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 9603·940 F.2d 549·1991 WL 148318·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 18525·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6333
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 7, 199189-35210California529 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

The motion of petitioner filed herein on June 10, 1991 unequivocally asserts his desire to discharge appointed counsel and to represent himself in all further proceedings in this appeal. He is entitled to do so under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). This motion is therefore GRANTED. Attorneys Gombiner and Lyon are relieved from further representation of petitioner.

Petitioner’s earlier motions to withdraw issues III, IV, and V presented in the original briefs in this appeal are DENIED. Petitioner, in his June 10, 1991 motion, notes that in light of the Washington Supreme Court opinion, In the Matter of the Personal Restraint Petition of Charles Rodman Campbell, No. 57406-5, entered March 21, 1991, rehearing denied May 15, 1991, the request to withdraw the issues is no longer desired.

Petitioner on June 10, 1991 filed a document notifying this court that he intended to file a pro se petition for habeas corpus in Federal District Court in Washington based upon the issues presented to and rejected by the Washington Supreme Court in the above-referenced Case No. 57406-5.

In petitioner’s pro se response to our order of February 21,…

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.