Beaver v. Hamby
Decision Date | 17 November 1983 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3-83-0756. |
Citation | 587 F. Supp. 88 |
Parties | Darryl James BEAVER, Petitioner, v. M.C. HAMBY, etc., et al., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
Thomas V. White, Nashville, Tenn., for petitioner.
Robert Grunow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., for respondents.
The petitioner applied through pro bono publico-counsel to this Court for the federal writ of habeas corpus. He claims he is in the custody of the respondent-warden pursuant to the judgment of November 20, 1981 of the Criminal Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, division III, and that his detention is in violation of the Constitution of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).* Annexed to the petitioner's application is his affidavit that he is unable to pay the costs of this proceeding or give security therefor and his statement of his belief that he is entitled to redress. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, the applicant hereby is
AUTHORIZED to commence and prosecute this proceeding without prepayment of fees or costs or giving security therefor. Id.
The applicant claims the exhaustion of his available state remedies on direct review of his judgment of conviction; he claims such judgment was affirmed on January 18, 1983 by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, and that his application to appeal further to the Supreme Court of Tennessee was denied May 9, 1983. (He makes no claim of having applied to the courts of Tennessee under its laws for post-conviction relief.)
If the applicant presented his federal claims on such direct review to the appellate courts of Tennessee, and such were rejected, it is not necessary that he apply again to such Courts for collateral relief on the same issues. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 450, 73 S.Ct. 397, 4042, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953). It is only where "* * * the States withhold effective remedy, that the federal courts have the power and the duty to provide it * * *." Frazier v. Lane, 446 F.Supp. 19, 255 (D.C.Tenn., per Neese, J., E.D.T., 1977).
"* * * Before an application for the writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the federal court, it must appear in the application that the constitutional questions therein raised have been ruled upon by the state courts. * * *" Application of Ortega, 158 F.Supp. 946, 9484 (D.C.Ill.1957), cert. den. sub nom. Ortega v. Ragen, Etc., 359 U.S. 928, 79 S.Ct. 612, 3 L.Ed.2d 630 (1959). No such showing is apparent in Mr. Beaver's present application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b), (c).
* * *"Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 5121, 30 L.Ed.2d 439 (1971). However, if the applicant does make it appear by amendment or supplement to his petition that such state courts had a full opportunity to determine the federal constitutional issues he seeks to present here, the policies served by the requirement of exhaustion of state-remedies would not be furthered by requiring him to resubmit the identical questions to the state courts. Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59, 63, 95 S.Ct. 257, 259, 42 L.Ed.2d 226 (1974).
One ground urged by the applicant relates to the exclusion by the trial judge of certain evidence; the other two grounds relate to an instruction given and the refusal of a requested instruction to his jury. It should be understood that: "* * * The writ of habeas corpus has limited scope; the federal courts do not sit to re-try state cases de novo but rather, to review for violation of federal constitutional standards. * * *" Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 377, 92 S.Ct. 2174, 21783, 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972). A federal constitutional issue would appear not to be implicated in the judicial instruction of the trial judge to the jury, that proof by circumstantial evidence of an element of the crime charged against the applicant required the prosecution to have disproved every reasonable theory except that of the applicant's guilt. Cf. United States v. Battista, 646 F.2d 237, 24618 (6th Cir.1981), (citing Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 , 139-140, 75 S.Ct. 127 , 13723, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954)), cert. den., 454 U.S. 1046, 102 S.Ct. 586, 70 L.Ed.2d 488 (1981) ( ); cf. (as arguably contra:) United States v. Leon, 534 F.2d 667 (6th Cir.1976) (), distinguished in Battista, supra.
1. that the respondent-warden file an answer or other pleading within 43 days herefrom, 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 81(a)(2), F.R.Civ.P., the slow movement of the mails noticed providing good cause for such additional time, Rule 4, supra;
2. that the petitioner address by brief, exhibits, etc., the questions posed hereinabove within 20 days;
3. that the clerk serve forthwith a copy of the applicant's petition herein and of this order by certified mail on the respondent-warden and the attorney general and reporter of Tennessee, id. ; and,
4. the applicant may amend or supplement his original brief at will before further action of this Court.
The petitioner Mr. Darryl James Beaver, who is serving a sentence of life-imprisonment for the second-degree murder of his stepfather Mr. David Beaver, seeks the federal writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, attacking his conviction of November 20, 1981 in the Criminal Court of Davidson County, Tennessee. Of the three grounds urged in support of such petition, none entitles Mr. Beaver to any relief in this Court.1
The petitioner contends that the trial-judge erred in excluding evidence concerning his stepfather's fear or apprehension of third-persons. At trial, the petitioner offered such evidence as reflecting on the state-of-mind of the deceased. In affirming the trial judge's exclusion of such evidence, the state appellate Court discussed the matter thusly:
Opinion of January 18, 1983 at 9-10.
The petitioner fails to explain how the foregoing determination of the state appellate-Court was erroneous or how the excluded evidence was other than cumulative of that already before the jury. He concedes that the evidence admitted at trial "* * * clearly established that Dr. Beaver's life had been in a state of steady deterioration for years and that his medical practice had dwindled to the point that he closed his professional office in Green Hills and began to practice out of his house. * * *" The petitioner asserts also that testimony adduced in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schad v. Schriro
...decision not to raise a meritless issue on appeal cannot form the basis for a claim of IAC. Petitioner relies on Beaver v. Hamby, 587 F.Supp. 88 (M.D.Tenn.1983), to support his argument that psychiatric autopsies are admissible and therefore appellate counsel was deficient for failing to ap......
-
State v. Guthrie
...was not whether the victim committed suicide, but why she committed suicide. More helpful, though still pre-Daubert, is Beaver v. Hamby, 587 F.Supp. 88 (M.D.Tenn.1983), a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Although it allowed psychiatric autopsy expert opinion, the testimony was confined to ......
-
State v. Marchesano, 1
...person causes the death of any person.7 See Harvey v. Raleigh Police Department, 85 N.C.App. 540, 355 S.E.2d 147 (1987); Beaver v. Hamby, 587 F.Supp. 88 (M.D.Tenn.1983); Bartram v. State, 33 Md.App. 115, 364 A.2d 1119 (1976). They have not been admitted when a deceased's state of mind is no......
-
Tuggle v. Raymond Corp.
...the jury through the admission of the ANSI and OSHA standards. Pankow v. Mitchell, 737 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tenn.App.1987); Beaver v. Hamby, 587 F.Supp. 88 (M.D.Tenn.1983). Lastly, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that causation cannot be established......