Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google
Web Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Arthur Lee Williams, Jr., Appellant, v. David Scurr, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. - 665 F.2d 212
Submitted Nov. 17, 1981.Decided Nov. 23, 1981
Parrish & Del Gallo, Alfredo G. Parrish, Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioner-appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen. of Iowa, Thomas D. McGrane, Asst. Atty. Gen., Des Moines, Iowa, for respondent-appellee.
Before BRIGHT and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIES, Senior District Judge.*
PER CURIAM.
Arthur Lee Williams, Jr., appeals from an order of the district court1 denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus based upon an alleged claim that he was denied his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in connection with his state court conviction of first degree murder.
Appellant contends here, as he did in the court below, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when conflicts arose between his court appointed counsel and counsel retained by his mother after three days of trial, concerning trial strategy and tactics. It is to be noted that it was only after appellant insisted, over court appointed counsels objection and attempts to withdraw, that the trial court permitted retained counsel to participate in the defense. It would be anomalous if a defendant could predicate a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel on a conflict of his own making if, in fact, such a situation arose. We find it did not. We have carefully reviewed the record and the memorandum opinion filed by Judge Vietor and find no need to further discuss either the facts or the law. We thus affirm on the basis of the district court's memorandum and its order entered pursuant thereto. --- F.Supp. ----. See Rule 14.
The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa