Allred v. Peyton

• Decision Date: 07 November 1967
• Docket Number: No. 11573.,11573.
• Citation: 385 F.2d 360
• Parties: Jones C. ALLRED, Appellee, v. C.C. PEYTON, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

385 F.2d 360 (1967)

Jones C. ALLRED, Appellee, v.C.C. PEYTON, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, Appellant.

No. 11573.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 2, 1967.

Decided November 7, 1967.

Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, on brief), for appellant.

Julian E. Savage, Richmond, Va., Court-appointed counsel(Minor, Thompson, Savage & Smithers, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before BOREMAN, BRYAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The sole question presented in this habeas corpus proceeding is whether appellee, Allred, properly asserted his right to the assistance of counsel in seeking and prosecuting an appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals from a state court conviction on a rape charge.If he did, his right to the assistance of counsel for purposes of appeal was abridged in violation of the Constitution of the United States.SeeDouglas v. People of State of California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811(1963).The court below reached the conclusion that Allred asserted this right but we find ourselves unable to agree with that determination.

In 1949, following a conviction for rape in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Virginia, Allred was sentenced to serve a term of eighteen years.Four years later, in 1953, he was granted a conditional pardon but in 1955he was convicted in the same court of a similar offense for which he was sentenced to a fifteen-year term.In the following year the conditional pardon was revoked.In 1965, he completed service of his 1955 conviction.He is currently serving the remainder of his first sentence.

In the court below, Allred assigned as ground for relief the denial of assistance of counsel in obtaining and prosecuting an appeal of his 1955 conviction.¹After a plenary hearing, the District Court found that Allred did not specifically ask for an appeal or for a new trial at the conclusion of his trial, and evidence further indicates that his court-appointed attorneys probably did not advise him of the possibility of an appeal, doubtless because they thought his trial was free of reversible error.Allred, however, insisted he had been convicted upon perjured testimony of his alleged victim and, following his removal to the penitentiary, wrote several letters to his attorneys and to the judge of the Franklin County Circuit Court.However, only one exchange of letters was before the court below.

On November 8, 1955, and within the statutory period for noting an appeal, Allred wrote to Mr. Perdue, one of his court-appointed attorneys, the letter which is set forth in its entirety in the margin.²The attorney replied that he thought it most unlikely that the trial court would decrease Allred's sentence — if indeed it could do so — and concluded:

"* * *. If anything at all turns up that I think will help you you may rest assured that I will notify you.For the time being I know nothing Mr. Hutcherson and I can do to aid you.As above stated, I am very sorry about your conviction and you have my deepest sympathy.I feel something will occur in the future that will relieve some of the time you have been given."

The District Court found that Allred's letter of the eighth did not specifically request assistance in prosecuting an appeal.Furthermore, the court found that Allred, his attorneys and the trial judge all had in mind the conditional pardon for the prior offense which local officials had helped him obtain.However, relying on this court's decision in Magee v. Peyton, 343 F.2d 433(4 Cir.1965), the lower court concluded that the letter was sufficiently broad to request aid "in every avenue open."It is not contested that when the letter was written the time within which appeal could be taken was still open.

We agree with the lower court that the letter did not include a specific request for an appeal, but we are unable to find in the letter's broad language words which could reasonably be interpreted as a request, even by a layman, for an appeal and for assistance of counsel therein.

In Magee, on which the District Court based its decision and on which Allred relies on appeal, this court determined that a specific request by the prisoner's father for the appointment of counsel in the event a new...