Robert Charles Comer v. Dora B. Schriro, Director, of Arizona Department of Corrections
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Per curiam
After appealing the District Court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, Petitioner Robert Comer (“Comer”) moved pro se to waive further federal proceedings, to terminate representation by his habeas counsel, and for dismissal of his appeal. A three-judge panel of our court remanded for the District Court to determine (1) whether Comer is competent to waive further proceedings and (2) whether he has chosen to do so voluntarily. See Comer v. Stewart, 215 F.3d 910 (9th Cir.2000). After extensive proceedings, the District *962Court found that Comer is competent and his decision to waive further…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Harris v. ReedSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Godinez v. MoranSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Whitlow v. HodgesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Gilmore v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Bills v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. v. State of TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 2013
- John Doe v. Robert Ayers, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Blair v. MartelCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Kirkpatrick v. ChappellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.