Opinion ID: 1439390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Procedural Posture of the Case

Text: Our dissenting colleagues express the thought that the majority has ignored our court's Rule 40 in denying the petition for reconsideration en banc. In fact, as would be expected, Rule 40 was considered carefully by the majority. In our view, the dissenting statements reflect a reluctance to accept a procedural concept which the majority considers to be an indispensable aspect of the proper functioning of an appellate court. In Smith v. United States, our No. 6980, one PDS attorney filed a 30-page brief on the merits of the appeal, presenting a number of issues. None related to the possible ineffectiveness of trial counsel, who had been another member of the PDS staff. On June 1, 1973, the government filed its brief on the merits. On July 9, 1973, a third PDS attorney filed a motion for leave to withdraw. Exclusive of a few citations, the entire text of that motion was as follows: Counsel for appellant is compelled to respectfully request leave to withdraw from and have new counsel appointed to this case due to ethical considerations. Reference to the citations in that motion indicated that the new PDS appellate attorney felt that trial counsel may have been ineffective to the point of depriving the appellant of his constitutional rights (although the motion itself did not so state). The motion was considered by a division of the court consisting of Judges Fickling, Kern, and Gallagher. On July 26, 1973, Judges Kern and Gallagher voted to grant the motion. Judge Fickling dissented. Leave to withdraw was granted by means of a simple, typed order. The division's intended disposition of the motion was not circulated to the other members of the court, and no opinion was written setting forth the reasoning of the two judges who voted to grant the motion. While that particular division did dispose of the narrow question before it, in no sense did its action constitute a decision of the court within the contemplation of either M. A.P. v. Ryan, D.C.App., 285 A.2d 310 (1971), or our Rule 40(c). More specifically, the perfunctory ruling on the motion in the Smith case could not and did not bind future divisions which might be asked to decide similar motions. Meanwhile, the separate motions to withdraw in the five cases now before us came on for consideration before a division composed of Chief Judge Reilly and Judges Kelly and Nebeker. Concerned by the rash of PDS motions to withdraw as appellate counsel based upon apparent assertions of ineffectiveness of PDS trial counsel, the new division concluded that a decision should be promulgated. A draft opinion was written and circulated by the majority to the full court, with Judge Kelly dissenting. The opinion duly became adopted, issued, and published. Thenceforth, that decisionAngarano v. United States, supra constituted a part of the body of law in this jurisdiction, absent rejection by a majority of the court en banc or reversal by the Supreme Court. See, e. g., Robinson v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 325, 272 F.2d 554 (1959). We have no doubt of the sincerity of the views expressed by PDS, the Bar Association, the Board of Governors of the District of Columbia Bar, and our dissenting colleagues. However, a majority of the court en banc considers the standard set forth in Angarano to be correct. With the heavy demands which are being made upon our time, it would be pointlessindeed wastefulfor the court to go en banc to achieve the same result which the majority already considers a division to have reached correctly. Hence, the prior decision of the court (as supplemented by this opinion) remains controlling as a result of the denial of the petition for reconsideration en banc.