Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
James W. CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. Michael BOWERSOX, Appellee.
This case comes before us on the motion of appellant for a stay of execution of a sentence of death, now scheduled to be carried out at 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday, November 10, 1999. Appellant also moves for a recall of our mandate in Chambers v. Bowersox, 157 F.3d 560 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1029, 119 S.Ct. 2383, 144 L.Ed.2d 785 (1999).
In Chambers we applied our rule, see Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518 (8th Cir.1997), that a certificate of appealability, specifying issues, is required in cases in which the notice of appeal is filed after April 24, 1996, even though the habeas petition itself was originally filed in a district court before that date. The correctness of this rule is called into question by an order of the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, No. 98-6322 (order entered Oct. 18, 1999). If the Supreme Court, when it decides Slack, determines that our conclusion in Tiedeman was wrong, then Chambers should have received plenary appellate review of all issues properly raised in his habeas petition, instead of what he did receive, that is, review limited to the issues specified in the certificate of appealability granted by the District Court. We do not believe that the State should be allowed to execute Chambers when there is thus an appreciable chance that he has not received the full review process to which he is entitled. The issues that he now wishes to present, issues other than those specified in the certificate of appealability, have never been fully briefed in this Court.
Accordingly, the motion for stay of execution is granted, and the appellee, Michael Bowersox, is ordered and directed not to carry out the sentence of death as to the appellant, James W. Chambers, until further order of this Court or of the Supreme Court. The motion for recall of mandate will be held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in Slack.
We will set an expedited briefing schedule on the remaining issues Chambers wishes to raise.
It is so ordered.
PER CURIAM.
BEAM, Circuit Judge, dissents, and would deny the motion for stay of execution and the motion for recall of mandate.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 97-3067.
Decided: November 05, 1999
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)