Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Charles Rodman Campbell v. James Blodgett
Citations: 940 F.2d 549; 91 Daily Journal DAR 9603; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6333; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 18525; 1991 WL 148318Docket: 89-35210
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 7, 1991; Federal Appellate Court
Charles Rodman Campbell, the petitioner-appellant, filed a motion on June 10, 1991, expressing his desire to discharge his appointed counsel and represent himself in his appeal, which was granted in accordance with the Faretta v. California ruling. As a result, his attorneys were relieved from further representation. Campbell's earlier motions to withdraw issues III, IV, and V from his original brief were denied, as he indicated he no longer wished to pursue this withdrawal following a Washington Supreme Court opinion regarding his personal restraint petition. Campbell intends to file a pro se habeas corpus petition in the Federal District Court in Washington, based on issues previously presented to and rejected by the Washington Supreme Court. He confirmed that the issues decided by the Washington Supreme Court, along with those on appeal, encompass all the matters to be resolved in his case. A previous appeal covering some of these issues has already been processed through the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, culminating in a denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court. To prevent piecemeal litigation, the court expressed the need for the remaining issues, which Campbell plans to raise in his upcoming habeas corpus petition, to be considered by the federal district court before resolving this appeal. Campbell notified the court that he would file his habeas corpus petition, and he has until August 30, 1991, to do so. The outcome of that petition may affect the need for further proceedings in this appeal, and any subsequent appeal from the district court's ruling could be consolidated with Campbell's current appeal.