United States Supreme Court

In this case, petitioner's first federal habeas petition was dismissed as untimely, and because his appointed attorneys had missed the filing deadline, they could not be expected to argue that petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Petitioner thus requested substitute counsel unaffected by the conflict of interest. Judgment denying petitioner's motion is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings, where: 1) 18 U.S.C. section 3599, which entitles indigent defendants to appointment of counsel in capital cases, does not give capital habeas petitioners the right to select the counsel of their choice, but does contemplate that a court may replace appointed counsel with similarly qualified counsel upon motion of the petitioner; 2) the denial of petitioner's motion did not adequately account for all the factors set forth in the Supreme Court's controlling decision in Martel v. Clair; and 3) Clair makes clear that a conflict, as here, in which counsel's contentions were directly and concededly contrary to their client's interest and manifestly served their own professional and reputational interests, is grounds for substitution.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/20/2015
• Published 01/20/2015

Judges

Court

• United States Supreme Court

Counsel