Chaney v. Brown, 83-1862

Decision Date15 July 1983
Docket NumberNo. 83-1862,83-1862
Citation712 F.2d 441
PartiesLarry Leon CHANEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John H. BROWN, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, McAlester, Oklahoma, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Allen M. Smallwood, Tulsa, Okl., for petitioner-appellant.

Michael C. Turpen, Atty. Gen. of Okl., David W. Lee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Federal Div., Robert A. Nance, Asst. Atty. Gen., Deputy Chief, Federal Div., Patricia M. Gerrity, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondent-appellee.

Before HOLLOWAY, BARRETT and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER GRANTING STAY OF EXECUTION OF DEATH WARRANT

PER CURIAM.

The court has for consideration the appellant Larry Leon Chaney's application for a stay of execution of appellant's death warrant, the memorandum of law in support of the application for stay of appellant's death warrant, and the response of the respondent Warden thereto. In the response, the State concedes that it is futile to resist entry of a stay while the merits of this federal habeas appeal are under consideration; the State, however, requests an expedited briefing and oral argument schedule and prompt resolution of this appeal.

The court is advised that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma has considered and denied appellant's petition for habeas corpus relief on June 30, 1983, challenging the constitutionality of appellant's first degree murder conviction and death sentence. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 6, 1983, to this court. The District Court on July 12, 1983, granted a certificate under Title 28, United States Code § 2253, "that there is probable cause for an appeal in this proceeding." The District Court also denied on July 12, 1983, appellant's application for a stay of execution, pending this appeal, concluding that the "petitioner's application for stay of execution of death warrant beyond July 25, 1983, is hereby denied."

The certificate of probable cause for an appeal having been granted, the appellant must "be afforded an opportunity to address the merits, and the court of appeals is obligated to decide the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, a circuit court, where necessary to prevent the case from becoming moot by the petitioner's execution, should grant a stay of execution pending disposition of an appeal when a condemned prisoner obtains a certificate of probable cause of his initial habeas appeal." Barefoot v. Estelle, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394, 76 L.Ed.2d ----, 33 Crim.L.R. 3275, 3279 (1983). This is appellant's first habeas appeal and the District Court's judgment was the first ruling on the merits of appellant's federal constitutional claims by a federal court. 1 The Barefoot opinion and other opinions of the Supreme Court cited by Barefoot, emphasize the duty of the courts of appeals to afford the parties an opportunity to address the underlying merits and the courts' obligation to give "due consideration of the merits." Barefoot, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 3392, 33 Crim.L.R. at 3277-78, see also Garrison v. Patterson, 391 U.S. 464, 88 S.Ct. 1687, 20 L.Ed.2d 744 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 242, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1562, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Nowakowski v. Maroney, 386 U.S. 542, 87 S.Ct. 1197, 18 L.Ed.2d 282 (1967).

We are thus advised that the earlier stay entered by the District Court will expire by its terms on July 25, 1983. The response says that the State intends to carry out the execution "immediately upon the dissolution of any federal stay which may be in effect ..." and that the execution "is being held in abeyance only by virtue of the pending federal stay which is due to expire on June (sic) 25, 1983." (Memorandum Response of the State at 1).

In view of the issuance of the certificate of probable cause for an appeal; the substantial, lengthy opinion of the District Court discussing seven issues raised by the federal habeas suit; 2 this court's obligation to give the parties the opportunity fully to address the underlying merits; this court's duty to give due consideration to the merits of the appeal; the obvious restrictions of time in the circumstances of this case; and the irreversible nature of the death penalty, we are constrained to grant the application for a stay of the execution of the death warrant, pending this appeal. See Barefoot v. Estelle, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3392, 76 L.Ed.2d ----, 33 Crim.L.R. 3275, 3279 (1983); Title 28, United States Code, §§ 1651 and 2251.

It is therefore ORDERED that execution of the death warrant for petitioner-appellant Larry Leon Chaney is hereby stayed, and that Respondent John H. Brown, Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, his agents and employees, and all persons acting by and under the authority of the State of Oklahoma, are hereby enjoined from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Chaney v. Brown, 83-1862
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 21 Marzo 1984
    ...of an evidentiary hearing and the denial of habeas relief. 5 We issued a stay of execution pending this appeal. Chaney v. Brown, 712 F.2d 441 (10th Cir.1983) (per curiam). As we will discuss in detail, we find the controlling issue in the case to be whether evidence withheld by the prosecut......
  • Cooney v. Park County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 18 Abril 1990
  • Bowling v. Haeberlin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • 28 Septiembre 2012
    ...But its length is warranted. The Court's paramount duty is to fully consider the merits of thePage 2petition. Cf. Chaney v. Brown, 712 F.2d 441, 443 (10th Cir. 1983) (declaring that the court's overriding concern was "to give due consideration to the merits of the appeal"). And where a peti......
  • Lafevers v. Gibson
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 16 Junio 1999
    ...cause], the court of appeals must... proceed to a Disposition of the appeal in accord with its ordinary procedure."); Chaney v. Brown, 712 F.2d 441, 442 (10th Cir. 1983) ("The certificate of probable cause for an appeal having been granted [by the district court], the appellant must `be aff......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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