Browne

Browne v. Clarke

Good Law
38 F. App'x 374
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 22, 2002No. 01-55047; D.C. No. CV 98-7863-LGBCalifornia1,114 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Andre Browne appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, we need not recite them in full here.

Browne argues first that, once he expressed to the judge that his lawyer was preventing him from testifying, the judge had a duty to take his waiver of the right to testify on the record. A court does not have a general duty to inform a defendant of the right to testify, nor does waiver of the right to testify generally have to occur in court on the record. See United States v. Edwards, 897 F.2d 445, 446 (9th Cir.1990). However, there may be instances in which “trial courts must take steps to insure important constitutional rights [such as the right to testify] have been voluntarily and intelligently waived.” Ortega v. O’Leary, 843 F.2d 258, 261 (7th Cir.1988). Here, Browne wrote to the judge, stating: “Every time I talk about being called like [co-defendant] Beamer [my lawyer] says it ain’t gonna happen and to forget about it.” At the meeting with the judge following this letter,…

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.