Carpenter v. Crouse, 9237.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 9237.,9237. |
| Citation | 389 F.2d 53 |
| Parties | Claude M. CARPENTER, Jr., Appellant, v. Sherman H. CROUSE, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Mark H. Price, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Daniel D. Metz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Topeka, Kan. (Robert C. Londerholm, Atty. Gen., Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BREITENSTEIN, HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.
The appeal is from an order denying a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas, the denial being based upon the trial court's conclusion that petitioner had not exhausted his available state court remedies. In substance, petitioner there raised two points: That because of collusion between his retained state court counsel and a county attorney in Kansas his appeal from a state court conviction was dismissed, thus depriving him of his constitutional right of appeal; and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
Because the first point questioned the professional conduct of two members of the bar, one a county attorney in Kansas and the other the lawyer who had been retained by Carpenter and who represented him in several state court criminal prosecutions, the trial judge conducted a full evidentiary hearing concerning the alleged misconduct of the lawyers. The judge thereafter made exhaustive findings of fact and adequate conclusions of law.1 By these findings the trial judge found no merit to the first point and conclusively showed that appellant has not exhausted his available state court remedies.
After the notice of appeal in this case had been filed in the trial court, Carpenter filed a motion in that court to set aside the previous order of dismissal upon the grounds of newly discovered evidence and also asked this court to remand the case for a hearing upon such motion. Such order of remand was entered directing the trial judge to hear the motion and certify to this court whether the same should be granted or denied. A second evidentiary hearing was then held and the trial judge made additional findings of fact based upon the newly discovered evidence and approved and affirmed all of the previously made and filed findings of fact. The additional findings are reported in Carpenter v. Crouse, Warden, supra, and need not be reiterated here.
It is elementary that the trial judge's findings of fact will not be disturbed unless we can say that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hines v. Baker
...the trial court's finding of counsel's competence is amply supported and not clearly erroneous, it may not be disturbed. Carpenter v. Crouse, 389 F.2d 53 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1046, 88 S.Ct. 1648, 20 L.Ed.2d 308; Linebarger v. State of Oklahoma, 404 F.2d 1092 (10th Cir.), cert......
-
Williams v. Eaton
...1218, 22 L.Ed.2d 470; Caldwell v. United States, 435 F.2d 1079 (10th Cir.); Brown v. Crouse, 425 F.2d 305 (10th Cir.); Carpenter v. Crouse, 389 F.2d 53 (10th Cir.).4 We believe that the test of Rule 52, F.R.Civ.P., applies here. "The question for the appellate court under Rule 52(a) is not ......
-
Lucero v. United States, 96-70.
...v. State of Oklahoma, 404 F.2d 1092 (10th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 938, 89 S.Ct. 1218, 22 L.Ed.2d 470; Carpenter v. Crouse, 389 F.2d 53 (10th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1046, 88 S.Ct. 1648, 20 L. Ed.2d 308. This finding is not clearly erroneous and is supported by the Luce......
-
Linebarger v. State of Oklahoma
...of additional jurors would not alter the conclusion that the remark had not been spoken. 3 Rule 52(a) Fed.R.Civ.P.; Carpenter v. Crouse, 389 F.2d 53 (10th Cir. 1968); Lattin v. Cox, 355 F.2d 397 (10th Cir. 1966); Latham v. Crouse, 347 F.2d 359 (10th Cir. 1965). 4 Nance v. Baker, 400 F.2d 86......