U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1988

Arthur James Julius v. W.J. Johnson, Warden, Holman Unit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided August 19, 1988 · Vance, Hatchett, Clark

854 F.2d 400; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11480; 1988 WL 85917 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Thomas M. Goggans, Montgomery, Ala., for petitioner-appellant., Charles Graddick, Atty. Gen. of Ala., John Gibbs, Ed Carnes, Asst. Attys. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for respondent-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Magwood v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1996)
Arthur James Julius v. Charlie Jones, Warden, Holman Unit (11th Cir. 1989)
Waldrop v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections (11th Cir. 2017)
Kornahrens v. Evatt (4th Cir. 1995)
Kornahrens v. Evatt (4th Cir. 1995)
Varnall Weeks v. Charlie E. Jones, Warden, Holman State Prison, James H. Evans, Attorney General for the State of Alabama (11th Cir. 1994)
Donald Thigpen v. Morris Thigpen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Willie D. Johnson, Warden, Holman Unit (11th Cir. 1991)
United States v. Eugenio Betancourt-Arretuche (1st Cir. 1991)
Haney v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)
Cochran v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING FILED BY BOTH PARTIES AND ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC FILED BY APPELLANT

Before VANCE, HATCHETT and CLARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Upon consideration of respondent-appel-lee’s petition for rehearing in the nature of a request for modification, the opinion filed March 9, 1988 is modified in the following respects:

(1) We hereby delete paragraph twelve under Section I of the opinion. 840 F.2d 1533, 1540 (11th Cir. 1988).

(2) The first sentence in the thirteenth paragraph is modified by making the following addition:

Turning to the charge that his counsel was ineffective, Julius argues that admission of the prior offense violated his right to a fundamentally fair trial. We need not address the issue of ineffectiveness because in the interim, the issue has been put to rest by the Supreme Court in Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 103 S.Ct. 843, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983).

The petition for rehearing filed by appellant Julius is DENIED, and no member of this panel nor other judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing in banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-5), the suggestion for rehearing in banc is DENIED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.