Cousins v. Cox

• Citation: 311 F. Supp. 1313
• Decision Date: 30 April 1970
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 70-C-6-L.
• Parties: Charles James COUSINS, Petitioner, v. J. D. COX, Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

311 F. Supp. 1313

Charles James COUSINS, Petitioner, v. J. D. COX, Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary, Respondent.

Civ. A. No. 70-C-6-L.

United States District Court, W. D. Virginia, Lynchburg Division.

April 30, 1970.

W. Luke Witt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for respondent.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT

DALTON, Chief Judge.

This case comes before the court on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in forma pauperis by Charles James Cousins, a state prisoner, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241.

On the 16th of February, 1970 said petition was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. By order dated February 24, 1970, this court transferred and filed said petition in this court.

Petitioner Cousins is currently serving a fifteen (15) year sentence in the Virginia State Penitentiary pursuant to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Amherst County, imposed on February 10, 1969. A jury found the petition-sentenced him accordingly. The Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed petitioner's allegations, the same as raised herein, and denied relief on the 14th of October, 1969. Therefore, since the er guilty of second degree murder and petitioner has presented his claims to the highest court in Virginia, this court concludes that an exhaustion of available state remedies has been fulfilled in compliance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, as interpreted in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963).

The petitioner raises four (4) points which he claims have denied him applicable constitutional rights. The four allegations are as follows:

1. Inadmissibility of petitioner's statement into evidence;

2. Failure to grant a new trial upon the grounds of after-discovered evidence;

3. Failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and

4. The verdict was contra to the law and evidence presented during the trial.

The four points raised by the petitioner deal essentially with errors alleged to have been committed by the trial court (Circuit Court of Amherst County) during petitioner's jury trial on the 22nd of November, 1968. The transcript of said trial, together with the other records in the case at bar, point to only one conclusion, namely, a conclusion and procedure which this court has continually emphasized and followed.

As stated in Grundler v. North Carolina, 283 F.2d 798, 801 (4th Cir., 1960)

* * * (W)e think that the transcript of the trial demonstrates that the evidence was sufficient. Even if we entertained doubts about this, there would be no basis for a federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding to undertake a broad review of the conviction in the state court. There is a difference between a conviction based upon evidence deemed insufficient as a matter of state criminal law, and one so totally devoid of evidentiary support as to raise a due process issue. It is only in the latter situation that there has been a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, affording the state prisoner a remedy in a federal court on a writ of habeas corpus.

After a careful examination of the records before this court it surely does not appear that they are so totally devoid of evidentiary support so as to raise a due process question.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals continued by saying that:

* * * (N)ormally, the admissibility of evidence, the sufficiency of evidence, and instructions to the jury in state trials are matters of state law and procedure not involving federal constitutional issues. It is only in circumstances impugning fundamental fairness or infringing specific constitutional protections that a federal question is presented. Id. at 802.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in McGee v. Eyman, 310 F.2d 230 (1962) concluded as follows:

* * * (T)he limitation upon a federal court in the case of a state prisoner was long spelled out in simple language by this court in Sampsell v. People of the State of California, 9 Cir., 191 F.2d 721, 725, as follows: `Our function in this type of

...