Barber v. State of Arkansas, 20173.
Decision Date | 14 July 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 20173.,20173. |
Parties | Jack Allen BARBER, Appellant, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS et al., Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Charles R. Ledbetter, and Ben Core, Fort Smith, Ark., on brief for appellant.
Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., and Mile Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief for appellees.
Before JOHNSEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and VAN OOSTERHOUT and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.
VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by petitioner Barber from judgment dismissing his petition. The petition as amended sought to have Barber's conviction on a state judgment of assault with intent to rob declared void upon the ground Barber had been denied his federal constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection by not being afforded a preliminary hearing provided for by § 43-601, Ark.Stat.Ann. Barber further prayed that the state be enjoined from further denying him equal protection. Jurisdiction is based upon 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
Barber in his petition also asserted the failure to provide him a preliminary hearing constituted a denial of due process. The due process attack is abandoned upon appeal.
The trial court sustained the state's motion to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction, stating the reasons therefor in a well-reasoned memorandum opinion dated November 19, 1969 (not reported).
Barber was arrested on February 13, 1969, in the Town & Country Liquor Store at Fort Smith, Arkansas, while tying up two women employees. He was tried in the state court upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney, as permitted by Arkansas law, charging Barber with assault with intent to rob. Barber entered a plea of not guilty. He was convicted by a jury and was sentenced to five-years imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed upon appeal on February 7, 1970. Barber v. State, Ark., 450 S.W.2d 291.
Barber asserts he was constitutionally entitled to a preliminary hearing provided by Arkansas law in connection with the charge upon which he was convicted and two other charges arising out of the same incident upon which he has not yet been tried. The same contentions were made by Barber on his direct appeal from his conviction to the Arkansas Supreme Court and were rejected by the court for the following reasons:
450 S.W.2d 291, 294.
In the Moore case cited in the above quotation, the Arkansas court follows and quotes with approval from Washington v. State, 213 Ark. 218, 210 S.W.2d 307, 308, as follows:
"" 315 S.W.2d 907, 908-909.
It is questionable whether 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 confers jurisdiction upon the District Court on the facts here presented. See Moss v. Horning, 2 Cir., 314 F.2d 89, 91-92, and cases there cited. We have chosen to dispose of the case upon the merits.
The Supreme Court has never held that an accused has a constitutional right to a preliminary hearing. Silva v. Cox, 10 Cir., 351 F.2d 61, 64; Dillard v. Bomar, 6 Cir., 342 F.2d 789, 790. See Barrett v. United States, 8 Cir., 270 F.2d 772, 776-777; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
M. A. P. v. Ryan
...there cited. See also Ramirez v. Arizona, 437 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1971); Jackson v. Smith, 435 F.2d 1284 (5th Cir. 1971); Barber v. Arkansas, 429 F.2d 20 (8th Cir. 1970); Austin v. United States, 408 F.2d 808 (9th Cir. 1969); Sciortino v. Zanipano, 385 F.2d 132 (2d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, ......
-
Jones-Williams v. St. Louis Cnty. Justice Ctr.
...been denied a preliminary hearing failed because it did not constitute the denial of a federal constitutional right); Barber v. Arkansas, 429 F.2d 20, 22 (8th Cir. 1970) (collecting cases). Also, the requirement of a preliminary hearing is mooted by the return of an indictment. See United S......
-
Collins v. Swenson
...that a defendant is not entitled to a preliminary hearing as a matter of constitutional right. See e.g. cases cited in Barber v. Arkansas, 429 F.2d 20, 22 (8 Cir.1970).3 Petitioner additionally asserts that he was denied his retained counsel at the arraignment. At his arraignment after indi......
-
United States v. Walker
...of irreparable injury sufficient to justify the extraordinary remedy of an injunction.390 U.S. at 618. See also Barber v. State of Ark, 429 F.2d 20 (8th Cir. 1970) (affirming district court's denial of injunction to halt prosecution in state court). In this case, defendant has alleged no sp......