947 F.2d 946 (6th Cir. 1991), 91-5248, Stanford v. Parke

Docket Nº:91-5248.
Citation:947 F.2d 946
Party Name:William Charles STANFORD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellee, v. Al C. PARKE, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
Case Date:October 29, 1991
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 946

947 F.2d 946 (6th Cir. 1991)

William Charles STANFORD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

Al C. PARKE, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 91-5248.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

October 29, 1991

         Editorial Note:

         This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

        On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, No. 89-00116; Allen, D.J.

        W.D.Ky.

        VACATED AND REMANDED.

        Before NATHANIEL R. JONES and DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and ROSEN, District Judge. [*]

        PER CURIAM.

        This is an appeal from a district court judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus to William C. Stanford, Jr. Mr. Stanford is currently serving a state prison sentence for burglary, which sentence was enhanced by reason of his having pleaded guilty to being a persistent felony offender. The habeas petition was based on a claim that the performance of Stanford's lawyer was constitutionally defective because the lawyer failed to challenge the validity of prior guilty pleas that lay behind the persistent felony offender conviction.

        The district court granted habeas relief on the basis of a finding that one of the prior guilty pleas was invalid. Two assignments of error are presented: (1) that the district court did not determine whether Mr. Stanford had ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) that the district court did not determine whether the doctrine of laches barred the granting of relief. Finding the assignments of error well taken, we shall vacate the judgment and remand the case so that the district court can make the necessary determinations.

        I

        In April of 1984 a Kentucky grand jury indicted Mr. Stanford on charges of first degree burglary, second degree burglary, and being a first degree persistent felony offender ("PFO"). Under Kentucky law "a persistent felony offender in the first degree is a person who is more than twenty-one (21) years of age and who stands convicted of a felony after having been convicted of two (2) or more felonies." Ky.Rev.Stat. § 532.080(3). Mr. Stanford had five previous felony convictions, which were listed in the indictment as follows: (1) on July 6, 1983, he pleaded guilty to first degree burglary and receiving stolen property of over $100; (2) on December 18, 1975, he pleaded guilty to dwelling house breaking; (3) on January 16, 1975,...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP