Cunningham v. Peyton
| Decision Date | 20 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 68-C-36-R. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
| Parties | Larry Bernard CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner, v. C. C. PEYTON, Superintendent Virginia State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
Gerald L. Baliles, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for respondent.
This case comes before the court upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in forma pauperis by Larry Bernard Cunningham, a state prisoner, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner is currently detained in the Virginia State Penitentiary pursuant to a judgment of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke of April 11, 1966. At his trial before a jury petitioner was represented by court-appointed counsel and entered a plea of not guilty. Petitioner appealed from the judgment entered against him, and on November 23, 1966 his petition for a writ of error was denied by the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The petitioner has therefore met the exhaustion of state remedies requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and it is appropriate at this time for the court to exercise its jurisdiction of petitioner's case.
Petitioner attacks the constitutional validity of the Roanoke County conviction on the same grounds he raised on his appeal to the Virginia high court; (1) the police officers who took the confession which was used against petitioner at trial failed to comply with the Miranda ruling in that they failed to advise petitioner that if he could not afford an attorney, one would be appointed for him at state expense, (2) petitioner's confession was not truly voluntary because petitioner was suffering from second degree burns on his legs and abdomen at the time the confession was made.
Having reviewed the transcript of the trial proceedings, the court is satisfied that petitioner received a "full and fair" evidentiary hearing on the facts relevant to the issues now presented. This satisfies the requirements of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312-313, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), and the record is therefore an adequate basis for this decision.
Turning to petitioner's first allegation, the interrogating officers admitted at trial that they did not specifically advise petitioner that if he could not afford an attorney, one would be appointed for him at state expense. Petitioner contends that although his trial took place prior to Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed.2d 694 (1966), that ruling should be applied to render his confession inadmissible in evidence. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966), however, holds that Miranda is to be given prospective application only from June 13, 1966, the day of the Miranda decision. Moreover, the Supreme Court's holding in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), does not warrant the exclusion of petitioner's confession under the facts of this case. Petitioner's argument that his confession was improperly admitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial