*1
547
EDWARDS,
Judge,
Before
Chief
ENGEL
JONES,
R.
NATHANIEL
Circuit
and
LUCEY, Petitioner-Appellеe,
E.
Keith
Judges.
v.
PER CURIAM.
SEABOLD, Superintendent,
William
Complex,
Blackburn Correctional
from
is an
the United States
appeal
This
Respondent-Appellant.
of
for the Eastern District
District Court
writ of
Kentucky
entered а
habeas
which
No. 79-3752.
Lucey
petition
appellee
of
who
corpus on
Appeals,
of
right
United States Court
to
deprivation of his
effective
claimed
appellate
Sixth Circuit.
counsel.
assistance of
Lucey’s
case
thаt
The facts in this
show
4, 1980.
Argued April
perfected
appeal
his
retained counsel had
2,
Decided
1981.
April
necessary record and
had filed the
аnd
of
Appeals
of
Ken-
but the Court
briefs
8, 1981.*
Reheаring
July
Denied
appeal
had
his
because he
tucky
dismissed
requirement
the
of
had failed to follоw
Kentucky
Appellate
of
Procedure
Rule
requirement
1.095(a)(1)
includes the
which
in
of
pleadings
Appeals
the
the Court
that
information as
must cоntain
same
“[t]he
appeal
in
in the
required
а statement of
RAP
pursuant
to
1.090.”
Supreme Court
cоurse,
that
question,
is
of
but
There
no
perfect right
a
to
Appeals
the Court of
has
prepаred
be
that such a document
demand
howevеr,
questions,
might
and filed. Two
arising: 1) whether Lu-
be considerеd as
lawyer
guilty
been
of ineffective
cey’s
had
Beasley
within our
v.
assistance of counsel
Stаtes,
(6th
1974),
Cir.
This case ordered remanded is any to power take needed purpose with testimony. Gen., Stephens, Atty. Gеrald F. Robert Gen., Frankfort, for Atty. Ky., Henry, Asst. JONES, Judge, R. Circuit NATHANIEL respondent-appellant. dissenting. Richmond, Nixon, duty Wil- an of сounsel to Ky., important It is
William M. Defender, opportunity to Public that his client has an Radigan, liam Asst. ensure M. appeal right. his at of Frankfort, present сlaims an petitioner-appellee. fоr Ky., * dissenting. JONES, J.,
548 comply counsel’s failure to with
Appellate
Kentucky’s Appellate Rule of Procedure
1.095(a)(1), causing ap- of the the dismissal merits, of withоut a consideration the
peal assistance of counsel violative
is ineffective Sowders, process.
of due Gilbert v. 646 (6th 1981) (per curiam)
F.2d 1146 Cir.
(Jones, concurring). also Anders v. See
California, 738, 745, 386 87 U.S. S.Ct.
1396, 1400,
(1967);
v. 423 F.2d 883 Cir.
1970). Consequently, I would affirm the
judgment granting of the district court petition corpus. for writ of habeas
Seabold’s America,
UNITED STATES of
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joseph Plymouth PERAINO and Distrib-
utors, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 79-5081. Appeals,
United States Court of
Sixth Circuit. 21,
Argued Oct. 1980. 6, April
Decided 1981. 24,
As April Amended 1981.