Irick v. Bell
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7552
6th Cir.2011Background
- Irick, a Tennessee death-row prisoner, sought federal funding under 18 U.S.C. § 3599 for counsel in state competency-to-be-executed proceedings and in efforts to reopen state post-conviction proceedings.
- The district court granted § 3599 funding for clemency proceedings but denied funding for competency and post-conviction-reopening efforts.
- Under Tennessee law, Irick had a statutory right to appointed counsel in competency-to-be-executed proceedings and in post-conviction actions; a Tennessee court had already authorized federal habeas counsel to represent him in competency proceedings.
- Irick argued Harbison v. Bell (Supreme Court) requires funding where state law does not authorize adequate representation, extending to clemency and other state proceedings.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of funding for competency and post-conviction reopening, holding Tennessee provides adequate representation and Harbison does not require funding in those contexts.
- Irick's appeal challenged the district court's interpretation of § 3599 as applicable only when adequate representation is unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3599(a)(2)/(e) requires funding when state law provides adequate representation. | Irick: state law does not guarantee adequate representation for all cited state proceedings; Harbison extends funding to clemency. | Bell: if state law provides adequate representation, § 3599 does not apply for funding. | No funding; Tennessee provides adequate representation. |
| Whether § 3599 covers reopening of state post-conviction proceedings. | Irick: reopening is a stage after federal habeas; § 3599 should fund counsel. | Bell: reopening is state post-conviction, not a proceeding 'subsequent to' federal habeas; no § 3599 funding. | Denied; § 3599 does not authorize funding for reopening state post-conviction proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbison v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1481 (U.S. 2009) (funding for counsel in state clemency proceedings under § 3599)
- Rosales v. Quarterman, 565 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2009) (denies § 3599 funding where adequate representation exists)
- Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2004) (statutory interpretation of post-conviction funding avenues)