ILNews

7th Circuit orders new defense counsel

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an order handed down late Monday afternoon, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals relieved a court-appointed defense counsel from representing his client and will appoint new counsel in a future order.

In United States of America v. Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban, No. 06-2801, Shaaban had been convicted in the Southern District of Indiana of various offenses related to trying to sell the names of CIA agents working covertly in Iraq to the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Shaaban was sentenced to 160 months in prison.

He appealed, but his appointed counsel sought to withdraw because he believed any issue raised on appeal would be frivolous. The 7th Circuit Court denied the motion and ordered counsel to address whether the District Court miscalculated the guideline range to sentence Shaaban.

Just before the 7th Circuit affirmed the sentence, the defense counsel sent a letter to Shaaban stating if the appeal was denied, the counsel would "argue for a rehearing and the appeal would not be final until rehearing were denied." Shaaban received another letter from his counsel just after the deadline to file a petition for rehearing lapsed, saying his sentence had been affirmed, but counsel made no mention of filing for a rehearing.

Shaaban filed a motion to recall the mandate because he believed his attorney did not follow through on his promise to file a rehearing request and Shaaban should be allowed to file one, even though the deadline had passed.

The appointed counsel was ordered to respond to the motion and stated he believed the affirmation and decision of the 7th Circuit on the case left him with only a frivolous appeal. He conceded he erred in not explaining to Shaaban his reasons for not filing for a rehearing and would file a petition for rehearing if the court deemed it necessary.

But the federal appellate court relieved the appointed counsel of his duties, finding he failed to communicate with Shaaban and already formed an opinion that the petition for rehearing was not necessary. In order to ensure full protection of Shaaban's right to counsel, new counsel will be appointed in a separate order, wrote Judge Kenneth Ripple. The newly appointed counsel shall file either a petition for rehearing or a motion to withdraw on the ground that any such petition would be frivolous and must do so within 30 days of appointment.

If the new counsel wants to withdraw because no nonfrivolous issue can be raised in a petition for rehearing, then Shaaban can file a response pursuant to 7th Circuit Rule 51(b).

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT