Garrison v. Patterson

Decision Date27 May 1968
Docket NumberNo. 791,M,791
Citation20 L.Ed.2d 744,88 S.Ct. 1687,391 U.S. 464
PartiesSylvester Lee GARRISON v. Wayne PATTERSON, Warden. isc
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., and Isaac Mellman, for petitioner.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen. of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., and John P. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

On November 27, 1959, petitioner was found guilty of first degree murder by a Colorado jury, which fixed his penalty at death. Following subsequent state proceedings, he sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. He alleged that he had received inadequate representation by appointed trial counsel,1 that the trial court had not properly determined the voluntariness of confessions admitted against him, and that the procedure used to determine his sanity fell short of constitutional requirements. On June 2, 1967, the District Court denied the writ, denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253, but granted a stay of execution to June 16, 1967, to allow time for appeal. The District Court filed a written opinion and order to that effect on June 5, 1967.

Three days later, on June 8, petitioner's attorneys filed with the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit a three-page document requesting a further stay of execution, a certificate of probable cause to appeal, and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. This document merely stated the formal history of the case in numbered paragraphs, noted one of the issues, and alleged that 'this petition merits further hearing by this Court.' On the following day, June 9, counsel were heard orally by a panel of the Court of Appeals. The hearing was not recorded. The court granted a further stay of execution. On June 18, without further argument or submissions by counsel, the Court of Appeals issued an order granting the certificate of probable cause, and, in the next sentence, affirming the District Court's denial of habeas corpus. Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari in this Court, alleging that the procedure followed by the Court of Appeals violated the standards established by, or implicit in, Nowakowski v. Maroney, 386 U.S. 542, 87 S.Ct. 1197, 18 L.Ed.2d 282.

We grant the writ, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand to that court for further appro- priate proceedings. Nowakowski, supra, held that when a district court grants a certificate of probable cause the court of appeals must 'proceed to a disposition of the appeal in accord with its ordinary procedure.' 386 U.S., at 543, 87 S.Ct. at 1199. The principle underlying that decision was that if an appellant persuades an appropriate tribunal that probable cause for an appeal exists, he must then be afforded an opportunity to address the underlying merits. This principle is no less applicable when a court of appeals, having received submissions relating only to probable cause and other procedural matters, decides that probable cause indeed exists.

As we only recently noted in Carafas v. La Vallee, 391 U.S. 234, at 242, 88 S.Ct. 1556 at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Barefoot v. Estelle
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1983
    ...to address the merits, and such practice was within the bounds of this Court's prior decisions, such as Garrison v. Patterson, 391 U.S. 464, 88 S.Ct. 1687, 20 L.Ed.2d 744. The parties, as directed, filed briefs and presented oral arguments, thus making it clear that whether a stay would be ......
  • Com. v. Morris
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • April 20, 2001
    ...defendant had adequate notice that his opportunity will be limited. Id. at 889-90, 103 S.Ct. 3383 (citing Garrison v. Patterson, 391 U.S. 464, 88 S.Ct. 1687, 20 L.Ed.2d 744 (1968)). In addition, where an applicant established probable cause for an appeal, he must be afforded an opportunity ......
  • Smith v. Secretary of New Mexico Dept. of Corrections, 93-2218
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • March 7, 1995
    ...issuance, petitioner "must then be afforded an opportunity to address the underlying merits." Garrison v. Patterson, 391 U.S. 464, 466, 88 S.Ct. 1687, 1688, 20 L.Ed.2d 744 (1968) (per curiam); see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394-95, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983). ......
  • Jones v. Butler
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • December 21, 1988
    ...(1988).7 463 U.S. 880, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983).8 Id. at 889, 103 S.Ct. at 3392 (quoting Garrison v. Patterson, 391 U.S. 464, 466, 88 S.Ct. 1687, 1688, 20 L.Ed.2d 744 (1968)).9 See 5th Cir.R. 8.7, 8.8, 8.11.10 See, e.g., Landry v. Lynaugh, 844 F.2d 1117, 1119 (5th Cir.), cert.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT