UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOSEPH ANTHONY DAVIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

9th Cir. | 1972-12-26
No. 72-2438
472 F.2d 596 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1972) Positive Treatment
Cited by 12 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

A prior decision on direct appeal is the law of the case and cannot be relitigated in a subsequent § 2255 motion.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sought to relitigate an issue previously decided against him on direct appeal via a § 2255 motion. The prior appeal was affirmed by the Nint…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of appellant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The issue here presented is precisely the same as the one presented and decided adversely to appellant in United States v. Davis, 447 F. 2d 1376 (CA9 1971), cert. denied 405 U.S. 933, 92 S.Ct. 939, 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972).

This circuit is firmly committed to the rule that where an issue has been decided on direct appeal from a conviction, it cannot be relitigated again on a § 2255 motion. The decision on the direct appeal is the law of the case. Odom v. United States, 455 F. 2d 159, 160 (CA9 1972). Appellant argues that United States v. Fox, 454 F. 2d 593 (CA9 1971) created new law by overruling United States v. Davis and that he should be permitted to fall within the perimeter of the new rule. Aside from the fact that Fox does not even suggest overruling Davis, Fox, 454 F. 2d p. 594,1 the new law, or change in law, rule is not applied in this circuit under circumstances such as here presented. Odom v. United States, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

. For that matter, an in banc proceeding would be required to overrule a previous panel decision.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw