Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 93-8534.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William Phillip NICHOLS, Defendant-Appellant.
Aug. 25, 1994.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge and DUHи and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, William Nichols, appeals the district court's
denial of his motions to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. ї
2255 and for appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. ї
3006A(a)(2)(B). We vacate and remand in part and affirm in part.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was convicted in February 1992 of three counts of
distributing crack cocaine within a thousand feet of a public
school in violation of 21 U.S.C. її 841(a)(1), 860(a). At
sentencing, the district court found Appellant a career felon based
on two state drug convictions. Accordingly, the district court
enhanced Appellant's sentence to 262 months imprisonment from a
sentencing range of 41 to 51 months.
On March 10, 1993, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated
one of Appellant's state convictions on the ground that his guilty
plea was involuntary because the state withheld exculpatory
evidence. Nichols then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. ї 2255 to
1

vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence on the ground
that he could no longer be considered a career offender since his
state conviction had been vacated. Appellant also filed a motion
for appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. ї 3006A(a)(2)(B). The
district court denied both motions, and Appellant appeals.
DISCUSSION
I.
Appellant first contends that ї 2255 relief is appropriate
when a state conviction that formed the basis of career offender
status is invalidated after the federal sentencing. In the recent
case, Custis v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1732, 128
L.Ed.2d 517 (1994), the Supreme Court stated in dicta that a
defendant who was successful in attacking his state conviction in
state court may then apply for reopening of any federal sentence
enhanced by that state sentence. Id. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 1739.
At oral argument, the Government conceded that, in light of Custis,
Appellant should get the benefit of the fact that he subsequently
had the previous state conviction overturned. Accordingly, we
vacate and remand on the basis of the Government's concession.
II.
Appellant next argues that the district court abused its
discretion by refusing to appoint counsel. Whether to appoint
counsel to represent a defendant in a ї 2255 proceeding is
committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Ford v.
United States, 363 F.2d 437 (5th Cir.1966). No evidentiary hearing
was necessary in this case, and at the time he requested counsel,
2

Appellant merely alleged that "the interest of justice" required
that counsel be appointed. We conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to appoint
counsel.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE and REMAND in part and
AFFIRM in part.

3