Linden v. Dickson

• Decision Date: 21 February 1961
• Docket Number: No. 16941.,16941.
• Citation: 287 F.2d 55
• Parties: Marion James LINDEN, Appellant, v. Fred R. DICKSON, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

287 F.2d 55 (1961)

Marion James LINDEN, Appellant, v. Fred R. DICKSON, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, Appellee.

No. 16941.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

January 31, 1961.

Rehearing Denied February 21, 1961.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Marion James Linden, in pro. per.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen. of California, Albert W. Harris, Deputy Atty. Gen. of California, for appellee.

Before HAMLEY, HAMLIN and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.

HAMLEY, Circuit Judge.

Marion James Linden, a California state prisoner under sentence of death for murdering a policeman, appeals from a district court order dismissing his application for a writ of habeas corpus. This is the second time that he has been before this court, and he has been before the California Supreme Court on three occasions.¹

Less than three weeks after we affirmed the denial of Linden's first application to the district court for a writ of habeas corpus, he filed the instant application in that court. In this application he presented no matter of which he was not fully aware when he filed his first application in the district court. The district court denied the second application on the day it was filed, without issuance of an order to show cause, without a hearing, and without examination of the state court record. Linden then appealed to this court. We issued a certificate of probable cause, granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and stayed execution until further order of this court.

The only ground urged by Linden for reversal is that the district court erred in dismissing the instant application without first examining the state court record.

When an application by a state prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus and the return thereto, if any, presents a question of fact which if resolved in favor of the applicant would entitle him to relief, it is ordinarily necessary for the district court to adjudicate the fact issue on the basis of evidence received at a hearing called for the purpose. Chavez v. Dickson, 9 Cir., 280 F.2d 727, 733.

If, however, such question of fact has been adjudicated in a state court proceeding the district court may in its discretion rely thereon, providing it first examines the state court record and satisfies itself that there is no "vital flaw" in the state court adjudication.²

We turn to an examination of the application for a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of determining whether any fact was alleged which if taken as true entitled Linden to relief. In order to entitle him to relief by way of habeas corpus the alleged fact assumed to be true must be one which would warrant the conclusion that Linden is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241(c) (3); Sampsell v. People of State of California, 9 Cir., 191 F.2d 721, 723.

Two of the allegations of fact made in Linden's application pertain to the state court hearing held for the purpose of considering his proposed corrections of the court reporter's transcript of the trial proceedings. One of these is to the effect that the court denied his request for a continuance to allow time for him to prepare for that hearing and for the subpoenaing of witnesses to testify in his behalf at that hearing.³ Linden states in his application that the California Supreme Court rejected the attack on the judgment based on this allegation on the allegedly erroneous ground that any error in regard to the disallowance of a continuance or the failure to subpoena witnesses did not result in a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of article 6, section 4½ of the California state constitution.⁴

Linden does not disclose in his application the nature of the corrections he had proposed. However, the nature of these objections became clear during the settlement proceeding and is described in the opinion of the California Supreme Court, People v. Linden, 52 Cal.2d 1, 32 n. 11, 338 P.2d 397, 413 n. 11.

Reliance on a state supreme court opinion does not satisfy the requirement that a state court record must be examined for vital flaws before a state adjudication of a disputed question of fact may be accepted.⁵ But as to facts which are not disputed an unchallenged recital thereof in a state supreme court may be accepted as true by the district court and this court. Linden v. Dickson, 9 Cir., 278 F.2d 755, 759. Linden does not question the recital of these facts as set forth in the above-cited opinion of the California Supreme Court.

The only corrections which Linden proposed were with reference to an incident which occurred during or at the close of the opening argument of the prosecuting attorney when a juror spoke. The court reporter's transcript recites that the defendant's advisor said that one of the jurors wanted to speak. Linden wished the record corrected to show that the defendant's advisor did not make such a statement. The court reporter's transcript records that the juror stated "I worried * * * all night." Linden claims that the juror actually said she "cried" all night over something the prosecutor said the previous day. The court reporter's transcript records that the discussion concerning the juror's question occurred after the prosecuting attorney had concluded his opening argument. Linden wanted this corrected to show that this discussion occurred at 11 a. m., before the prosecuting attorney had concluded his opening argument.

As pointed out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of California, the proposed corrections were inconsequential and immaterial to the disposition of that appeal. Hence, if there was error in the failure to grant a continuance so that Linden could prepare himself for the hearing, or in the failure to subpoena witnesses to support his proposed corrections, it was not of a kind which could possibly bring into play the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. As applied to a state criminal proceeding, "denial of due process is the failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice." Lisenba v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 219, 236, 62 S.Ct. 280, 290, 86 L.Ed. 166.

It follows that the allegations of fact under discussion, taken as true, do not entitle Linden to habeas corpus relief. Therefore no hearing or examination of the state court record was necessary before the district court decided against Linden on this aspect of his application.

Linden also asserts in his application that he was deprived of the right to have the assistance of counsel at the settlement hearing. Here again he argues that the only reason the California Supreme Court did not reverse on this ground is because it concluded that there had been no miscarriage of justice. In support of his assertion that he was deprived of the right to have the assistance of counsel at the settlement hearing Linden made the allegations of fact set out in the next two paragraphs of this opinion.

Copies of the transcript were duly delivered to Linden at San Quentin prison. Representing himself, he proposed certain corrections. The trial court set October 30, 1957, as the date for hearing of the proposed corrections. On October 28, 1957, Linden petitioned the trial court to appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing and for a continuance to allow him and the attorney to prepare themselves. On the afternoon of October 29, 1957, the court appointed a member of the California Public Defender's office to represent Linden at the hearing.

On the morning of the hearing, October 30, 1957, Linden had a few minutes to talk to the attorney. They disagreed as to procedure. Because of this and because under the circumstances he regarded the attorney as "ill prepared," Linden asked the court for permission to represent himself. He also requested, however, that an attorney be appointed to sit with him in an advisory capacity. The court permitted Linden to represent himself but denied his request that a lawyer be appointed to serve as an advisor. Linden proceeded in the hearing under protest, claiming that he was being deprived of a constitutional right.

In dealing with the contention concerning assistance of counsel, the district court in the instant proceeding did not decide whether these allegations, if presented in an initial habeas corpus proceeding and taken as true, would entitle Linden to relief. Instead, it declined to consider the issue at all because in its view the same argument had been considered and rejected in the first federal habeas corpus proceeding.

In his previous habeas corpus application in federal court Linden asserted that he had been deprived of the right to be represented by counsel at his trial. This assertion was predicated on the allegation that by reason of mental incompetency his purported waiver of such assistance at the trial was not intelligently made.

Having thus opened up the question as to unconstitutional deprivation of the right to counsel, Linden should have presented all facets thereof concerning which he had knowledge of the facts and appreciation of their legal significance. He should not have limited his presentation in that proceeding to the matter of assistance of counsel at the trial if he then believed that a similar problem existed with respect to the settlement hearing or any other phase of the state court proceedings. Otherwise an applicant could start with the question of representation by counsel at the arraignment and if that contention were rejected could institute a succession of habeas corpus proceedings, each raising the same question with reference to the trial, the sentencing, settlement of the transcript, and appeal. This would be a plain abuse of the judicial process.

The view just expressed is not based upon the principle of res judicata. The inflexible doctrine of res judicata does not apply to a decision on habeas corpus refusing to discharge a prisoner.⁶ But apart from that doctrine, where the same...