Collins v. Heinze

Citation125 F. Supp. 186
Decision Date04 March 1954
Docket NumberNo. 7005.,7005.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California
PartiesJohn COLLINS, Petitioner, v. Robert A. HEINZE, Warden of California State Prison at Folsom, Respondent.

Petitioner, pro se.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., of California, for respondent.

LEMMON, District Judge.

Collins, now confined in the California Penitentiary at Folsom under sentence by a California court after conviction by a jury of the crimes of burglary in the first degree, assault with a deadly weapon and grand theft, seeks release here through the writ of habeas corpus.

An order to show cause why the writ should not issue was entered herein. In response thereto the Attorney General of California has filed a return on behalf of respondent together with a record of the proceedings in the state trial court, including a transcript of the testimony at the trial and a transcript of the proceedings taken at the time of the discharge of the Public Defender as counsel for him.

Collins appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal of the State upon the grounds essentially the same as those which he sets forth in his petition to this court. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. People v. Collins, 117 Cal.App.2d 175, 255 P.2d 59. A petition for a rehearing addressed to that court, a petition to the Supreme Court of the State of California for a hearing and a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States were all denied, 346 U.S. 803, 74 S.Ct. 33.

Most of the grounds which he advances refer to errors which he asserts occurred to his prejudice during the trial. These were considered on appeal. Ordinarily a federal court should not issue the writ under such circumstances. Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672, 68 S.Ct. 1270, 92 L.Ed. 1647; Holiday v. State of Maryland, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 844. But since it is claimed that his federal constitutional guarantees have been violated this court must review and has carefully reviewed the record in his case.

This court may not consider such matters as are alleged here for the first time. If he raises issues here which were not raised on the appeal he must allege that they were raised by habeas corpus in the state courts and that he has exhausted his remedies there.

Neither are the allegations that false testimony was used sufficient for this court to consider. Conflicts in the testimony of a witness and between the testimony of witnesses are common at trials. Petitioner disputes the word of certain of the witnesses. He gave his version at the trial. The conflicts were resolved by the jury. This court is not to be expected to retry the issues which were thus disposed of in the state court.

When the petitioner seeks redress in a federal court from imprisonment after judgment of conviction in a state court, the federal court must assume that the state courts were alert to correct any violation of the petitioner's federal constitutional rights. The burden is upon the petitioner to show otherwise.

The contention that petitioner was denied right to counsel is not sustained by the record. Being without funds the Public Defender was appointed to represent him. As the District Court of Appeal observed, 117 Cal.App.2d 175, 255 P.2d 63 "It has been judicially declared that the public defender of Los Angeles County and his staff have higher than average ability in defending criminal actions. People v. Adamson, 34 Cal.2d 320, 333, 210 P.2d 13". Petitioner would not cooperate with his counsel and therefore the deputy public defender asked for and was relieved from further duty to represent petitioner. Thereafter he conducted his own case, this in the face of strong advice offered by the trial judge that he should have counsel. He did not ask that the court appoint other counsel and appeared content to conduct his own case. Counsel could not be forced upon him against his will.

A constitutional right, like any other right, may be waived; and while the constitutional right to have the benefit of counsel is a valuable and sacred one, and one that should never be denied or abridged, it is not a compulsory right; or, to put it in plain and simple words, if the defendant does not desire the assistance of counsel, but prefers to act as his own lawyer, he has that right also.

The appointed counsel could not be expected and should not be required to continue to carry this heavy burden of responsibility handicapped, as he would have been, by a dissatisfied client.

Petitioner was not a stranger in criminal courts. He had previously suffered a felony conviction and a term of imprisonment. This is a circumstance that may properly be considered in determining whether he understandingly waived counsel. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461.

The following is taken from the record of proceedings had at the time the Public Defender was discharged:

"Mr. Powell. If your Honor please, I now move to advance this matter, which is on the trial calendar for the 13th of May, for the purpose of making a motion to be relieved as counsel for the defendant.
"The Court. Is that your desire, Mr. Collins, to substitute some other attorney in place of the Public Defender?
"The Defendant. Yes.
"Mr. Powell. Well, he indicates to me that he has no private counsel but that he does not desire my services in any sense of the word. He won't cooperate with me in preparing for his defense and has told me that he has no desire to be represented by my office or myself.
"The Court. Very well. Is that what you want to do?
"The Defendant. Yes. I would rather defend myself.
"The Court. Very well. The Public Defender is ordered relieved and the record will so show."

Petitioner disputes the correctness of the above. Be that as it may, his own statement contained in his "Answer to Court's Letter And Respondent's Supplement And Motion To Subpoena Record On Appeal" may be accepted for the purpose of this court's ruling. Therein he states,

"It is the petitioner's contention in this respect that the Public Defender, Elias Powell, told the petitioner that he would defend him only upon the condition that he avoid questioning the witnesses, and when the petitioner told him that he had a right to defend in person as well as with counsel the Public Defender moved to be relieved as petitioner's counsel.
"The petitioner told the trial judge that he wanted to reserve the right to
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Collins
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 20, 1963
    ...refer to certain federal court decisions of which counsel have stipulated the court may take judicial notice, namely, Collins v. Heinze, 125 F.Supp. 186 (D.C.N.D. Calif.), and Collins v. Heinze, (9 C.A.) 217 F.2d 62 (certiorari denied in 349 U.S. 940, 75 S.Ct. 786, 99 L.Ed. In 1954 this app......
  • Egan v. Teets
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 26, 1957
    ...1006, 1010, adhered to on rehearing, 2 Cir., 138 F.2d 831, certiorari denied, 321 U.S. 794, 64 S.Ct. 785, 88 L.Ed. 1083; Collins v. Heinze, D.C., 125 F.Supp. 186, 190, affirmed, 9 Cir., 217 F.2d 62, certiorari denied, 349 U.S. 940, 75 S.Ct. 786, 99 L.Ed. 1268. In a federal prosecution, a de......
  • US ex rel. Young v. SUPER., GREENHAVEN CORR. FACILITY, 76 Civ. 749 (CHT).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 6, 1976
    ...by the jury. This court is not to be expected to retry the issues which were thus disposed of in the state court." Collins v. Heinze, 125 F.Supp. 186, 188 (N.D.Cal.), aff'd, 217 F.2d 62 (9th Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 940, 75 S.Ct. 786, 99 L.Ed. 1268 (1955). Here, petitioner testifi......
  • Williams v. Wolff
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • June 3, 1981
    ...as was the case here, is of importance, for only matters of state law are involved. See Oliphant v. Koehler, supra; Collins v. Heinze, 125 F.Supp. 186 (N.D.Cal.1954), aff'd 217 F.2d 62 (9th Cir. Since Petitioner claims he was denied a fair trial, this Court has carefully reviewed the record......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT