Opinion

Wise v. United States

  • 522 A.2d 898
  • 1987 D.C. App. LEXIS 316
Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Filed
Mar 26, 1987
Status
Published
Author
Rogers
On the bench
Chambers, Gallagher, Rogers, Terry
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.4%

The opinion

ROGERS, Associate Judge,

concurring:

I join in the result reached by the majority, and write separately only to indicate my view that we decide a narrow issue. Because appellant Wise was appointed counsel on appeal and that counsel did, in fact, advise Wise on the merits of filing a petition for rehearing en banc, we need not decide whether this stage of appellate proceedings is an “integral part” of the appellate process for which he is entitled to appointed counsel. See Corley v. United States, 416 A.2d 713 (D.C.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1036 , 101 S.Ct. 614 , 66 L.Ed.2d 499 (1980). Wise's disagreement with the recommendation of his appellate counsel on the merits of filing a petition does not, in my view, raise the issue addressed by the majority.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.