# Fernando Lopez v. Julius Wilson, Warden

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · October 7, 2005 · 426 F.3d 339

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9498450

## Case

- **Full name:** Fernando LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Julius WILSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 7, 2005
- **Citations:** 426 F.3d 339; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 21701; 2005 WL 2465890
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rogers
- **Judges:** Boggs, Martin, Suhrheinrich, Batchelder, Daughtrey, Moore, Cole, Clay, Gilman, Gibbons, Rogers, Sutton
- **Cited by:** 124 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9498450

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “a Rule 26(B) application to reopen is a collateral matter rather than part of direct review,” and “[a]s such, there is no federal constitutional right to assistance of counsel at that stage”
- holding that a motion to reopen is “part of the collateral, postconviction process rather than direct review” such that no constitutional right to counsel exists at that stage
- holding that a motion to reopen under Ohio R. App. P. 26(B) is a collateral proceeding

## Opinion text

ROGERS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment. I also concur in the majority opinion, with one qualification. It is unnecessary to conclude that our court’s decisions in Isham, Bronaugh, *360 and Searcy were in direct conflict with White v. Schotten, and I would not do so. While there is clearly some tension between the reasoning of White and that of our later statute of limitations cases, White’s characterization of Rule 26(B) for purposes of the constitutional right to counsel did not necessarily govern the different issue of how Rule 26(B) should be characterized for purposes of the AEDPA statute of limitations.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9498450. Public record. Not legal advice.