Caffey v. Swenson
Decision Date | 13 April 1971 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 18722-3. |
Parties | James Robert CAFFEY, Petitioner, v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, Missouri State Penitentiary, Jefferson City, Missouri, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
O. J. Taylor, for Neale, Newman, Bradshaw & Freeman, Springfield, Mo., for petitioner.
Kenneth M. Romines, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Missouri, Jefferson City, Mo., for respondent.
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF DECEMBER 31, 1970, AND JUDGMENT DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner, a state convict confined in the Missouri State Penitentiary, petitions this Court for a writ of federal habeas corpus adjudicating as invalid his state conviction of "control of a narcotic drug." Petitioner also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis has been previously granted.
Petitioner states that he was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Greene County of the offense of "control of a narcotic drug"; that he was sentenced on that conviction on February 9, 1962, to a term of twenty years' imprisonment; that he appealed from the judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence; that his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court on appeal (State v. Caffey, Mo., 365 S.W.2d 607); that thereafter petitioner filed in the Missouri Supreme Court a "motion to recall mandate" of affirmance on appeal under Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811, and Bosler v. Swenson (C.A. 8) 363 F.2d 154, asserting denial of his right to counsel on appeal; that the motion to recall mandate of affirmance on appeal was denied on November 14, 1966; that petitioner subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus in this Court which was dismissed without prejudice on April 11, 1969, (see Caffey v. Swenson (W.D.Mo.) 298 F.Supp. 994, in which this Court noted that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had not determined Bosler v. Swenson, 386 U.S. 258, 87 S.Ct. 996, 18 L.Ed.2d 33, affirming Bosler v. Swenson, supra, to be retroactive until the decision in Swenson v. Donnell (C.A. 8) 382 F.2d 248, on August 8, 1967; and that petitioner had opposed being granted a new appeal with counsel, requesting that he be released outright from the penitentiary; accordingly, this Court advised petitioner to file a successive motion to recall mandate of affirmance on appeal requesting the redocketing of his appeal and assignment of counsel); that petitioner subsequently again petitioned this Court in habeas corpus complaining of the Missouri Supreme Court's alleged failure to file his subsequent motion to recall mandate of affirmance on appeal, but that petition was dismissed without prejudice on December 2, 1969 (see Caffey v. Swenson (W.D.Mo.) Civil Action No. 17876-3, in which this Court noted that petitioner should make it clear to the Clerk of the Missouri Supreme Court that his motion was in case no. 49364 in that court rather than in case no. 55151, in which the Clerk had thought the motion was sought to be filed and consequently did not file the motion because the decision on appeal in case no. 55151 had not yet been made); that petitioner also filed a motion to vacate his sentence under Missouri Criminal Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., in the state trial court which was overruled on October 20, 1969; that thereafter petitioner appropriately filed a motion to recall mandate in case no. 49364 in the Missouri Supreme Court; that the motion was sustained on January 12, 1970, and petitioner was granted a new appeal with the assistance of counsel; that petitioner's appeal from the overruling of his Rule 27.26 motion by the state trial court was then consolidated with his new appeal; and that the Missouri Supreme Court again affirmed the conviction and sentence on September 14, 1970. State v. Caffey, Mo., 457 S.W.2d 657.
As grounds for his contention that his state conviction was secured in violation of his federal rights, petitioner states the following:
Petitioner states the following as facts in support of the above grounds:
The official report of the Missouri Supreme Court's decision of September 14, 1970, shows that petitioner raised the following contentions which were considered by the Missouri Supreme Court in petitioner's consolidated appeals from the overruling of his Rule 27.26 motion and from his conviction and sentence:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peterson v. State
...States v. Townsend, 394 F.Supp. 736 (E.D.Mich., 1975); United States v. Harruff, 352 F.Supp. 224 (E.D.Mich., 1972); Caffey v. Swenson, 332 F.Supp. 624 (W.D.Mo., 1971); Underdown v. District of Columbia, 217 A.2d 659 (D.C.Ct.App.1966); State v. Bean, 239 N.W.2d 556 (Iowa 1976); State v. Birk......
-
State v. Birkestrand
...482 F.2d at 1119; United States v. Guinn, 454 F.2d at 36; Durham v. United States, 403 F.2d 190, 194 (9th Cir. 1968); Caffey v. Swenson, 332 F.Supp. 624, 636 (W.D.Mo.1971); Johnson v. State, 14 Md.App. 721, 288 A.2d 622, 627--628 (1972); 68 Am.Jur.2d, Searches and Seizures, § 70 at 725; cf.......
- Keiser v. Bell
-
Fisher v. Trickey
...Judge Meredith's decision in Corlew v. Swenson, 336 F.Supp. 592 (E.D.Mo. 1971), and Chief Judge Becker's decision in Caffey v. Swenson, 332 F.Supp. 624 (W.D.Mo.1971), "could be construed as reaching a contrary result." The Court of Appeals reviewed all four of the district court opinions an......