United States v. Hawkins, Robert A. ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                 In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________
    No. 06-2094
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    ROBERT A. HAWKINS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.
    No. 04 CR 50028—Philip G. Reinhard, Judge.
    ____________
    ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
    AND APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNSEL
    ____________
    OCTOBER 26, 2007Œ
    ____________
    RIPPLE, Circuit Judge (in chambers). This matter is
    before me on the motion of appointed counsel to with-
    draw and on the motion of Mr. Hawkins for the appoint-
    ment of new counsel. This court decided the merits of this
    direct criminal appeal in United States v. Hawkins, 499
    Œ
    This opinion was released initially in typescript form.
    2                                              No. 06-
    2094 F.3d 703
     (7th Cir. 2007). The deadline for the defendant
    to file a petition for a panel or en banc rehearing was
    September 11, 2007. Fed. R. App. P. 35(c), 40(a)(1). On that
    day, Mr. Hawkins’ appointed counsel instead filed a
    motion to withdraw as counsel and requested a thirty-day
    extension so that Mr. Hawkins could prepare and file a
    petition for rehearing on his own behalf. Mr. Hawkins
    then filed a motion asking for the appointment of new
    counsel. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, I grant
    the motion to withdraw and grant the motion for the
    appointment of counsel.
    I
    BACKGROUND
    After a jury found Mr. Hawkins guilty of robbery
    affecting interstate commerce, 
    18 U.S.C. § 1951
    (a), of
    using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, 
    id.
    § 924(c)(1)(A), and of unlawful possession of a firearm by
    a felon, id. § 922(g)(1), he was sentenced to 324 months’
    imprisonment. Mr. Hawkins appealed and argued that
    the district court violated his right to due process of law
    by permitting testimony about a “showup” identification
    conducted shortly after his arrest. This court affirmed the
    convictions. We held that the identification technique
    employed during the investigation was not unduly sug-
    gestive and that, in any event, the identification was
    reliable.
    II
    DISCUSSION
    As appointed counsel recognizes, the duties of appointed
    counsel in a direct criminal appeal do not end when this
    No. 06-2094                                                  3
    court renders an adverse decision. Counsel still has the
    obligation to consider whether to file post-opinion plead-
    ings in the court of appeals and a petition for a writ of
    certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. Unless
    it would be frivolous to do so, counsel must prepare
    and file such pleadings. Seventh Circuit Criminal Justice
    Act Plan, § V.3; United States v. Price, 
    491 F.3d 613
    , 615 (7th
    Cir. 2007) (Ripple, J., in chambers); United States v. Howell,
    
    37 F.3d 1207
    , 1209-10 (7th Cir. 1994) (Ripple, J., in cham-
    bers).
    Mr. Hawkins’ appointed counsel states that she has
    notified Mr. Hawkins of his right to file a petition for
    rehearing in this court and for certiorari before the Su-
    preme Court and that Mr. Hawkins insists that the peti-
    tions be filed. However, counsel states that in her profes-
    sional judgment, there is no reasonable basis for filing
    either petition. As she notes, this case was decided pri-
    marily on factual rather than legal grounds, the opinion
    was without dissent and it identifies no split of authority
    that would tend to suggest that rehearing or Supreme
    Court review are warranted.
    In this ruling, I shall limit my remarks to the situa-
    tion currently facing Mr. Hawkins—the filing of a petition
    for rehearing in this court. Until that step in the process
    is completed, it would be premature to address the filing
    of a petition for a writ of certiorari.
    Appointed counsel is under no obligation to file a
    petition for rehearing in every case. United States v. Coney,
    
    120 F.3d 26
     (3d Cir. 1997). Appointed counsel is correct
    in stating that such a decision must be left to the sound
    discretion of appointed counsel. Indeed, as appointed
    counsel’s motion intimates, there may well be times when
    the filing of such a petition would be frivolous and,
    4                                                 No. 06-2094
    therefore, in violation of counsel’s obligation to the court.
    
    Id. at 27
    . In this case, however, given the nature of the
    claim raised on appeal and the conclusory nature of ap-
    pointed counsel’s submission, I cannot accept, at this
    point, counsel’s submission that a petition for rehearing
    would necessarily be frivolous in this case. The motion to
    withdraw states in conclusory fashion that there was
    no dissent from the panel’s holding, that the case was
    decided on largely factual, as opposed to legal, grounds,
    and that the opinion identifies no split in authority.
    Counsel is correct that the fairness of a showup identifica-
    tion is necessarily a fact-based inquiry, but factual dis-
    tinctions in such cases are very important in assessing
    whether the procedure was a fair one. The papers before
    me demonstrate no effort on the part of counsel to come to
    grips with existing case law or with the panel’s analysis.
    Neither do they demonstrate why a petition for rehear-
    ing necessarily would be frivolous. Cf. Anders v. California,
    
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967); United States v. Schuh, 
    289 F.3d 968
    , 973-
    74 (7th Cir. 2002).
    Under these circumstances, the ends of justice will be
    best served by granting appointed counsel’s motion to
    withdraw and by appointing another counsel to evaluate
    the case and consult with Mr. Hawkins. If replacement
    counsel agrees with the view of present counsel, replace-
    ment counsel may file, with notice to Mr. Hawkins, a
    motion to withdraw, and Mr. Hawkins may file, if he
    wishes, a response to counsel’s motion. See Cir. R. 51(b).
    This action is compatible with the court’s practice in
    similar circumstances, see Howell, 
    37 F.3d at 1210
    . I em-
    phasize that I do not mean to discredit, in any way, the
    professional judgment or standards of current appointed
    counsel. Rather, I simply believe that, given the nature
    No. 06-2094                                               5
    of the issue on appeal in this case, a more specific show-
    ing of the frivolousness of any petition for rehearing is
    necessary before the court can leave a criminal defendant
    without counsel at this stage of the proceedings. Since
    counsel has formed an opinion about the merits of the
    case, Mr. Hawkins’ right to counsel can be better pro-
    tected by the appointment of another counsel.
    I also emphasize that my ruling today is limited to
    the petition for rehearing stage of the proceedings. It
    would be premature to address the petition for a writ of
    certiorari stage at this point.
    Accordingly, the motion of appointed counsel to with-
    draw is granted. The motion of the defendant for new
    counsel is granted. Newly appointed counsel shall have
    30 days from the date of appointment to file either a
    petition for rehearing or a motion to withdraw on the
    ground that any petition would be frivolous.
    IT IS SO ORDERED
    A true Copy:
    Teste:
    _____________________________
    Clerk of the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    USCA-02-C-0072—11-2-07