Graves v. Eyman
| Decision Date | 17 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 20935.,20935. |
| Citation | 373 F.2d 324 |
| Parties | Ray Martin GRAVES, Appellant, v. Frank A. EYMAN, Warden, Arizona State Prison, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Ray Martin Graves, in pro. per.
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen. of Ariz., James S. Tegart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee.
Before POPE, MERRILL and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
The appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court below seeking such a writ against the appellee as Warden of the Arizona State Prison. Appellant is a prisoner in the custody of Warden Eyman pursuant to a sentence imposed upon him after a verdict of guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree returned by a jury in the Superior Court of Yuma County, Arizona.
In his petition for the writ of habeas corpus the appellant alleged that in the course of his prosecution in the Arizona courts he was deprived of his right to counsel during the period when he was being interrogated prior to his prosecution and arraignment; that he was denied a preliminary hearing prior to the filing of an information against him in the Superior Court of Arizona, and that he was denied a delayed appeal by the Arizona Supreme Court.
The district court to whom this petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented denied and dismissed the same and this appeal followed.
We are unable to discover in this record any basis for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The denial of a delayed appeal by the Arizona Supreme Court does not amount to a denial of any federal right of the appellant. Whether such delayed appeal should be granted under Arizona law is a matter exclusively within the discretion of the Arizona court.
The claim that the appellant was entitled to a preliminary hearing prior to his prosecution in the Superior Court is based upon a misunderstanding of the Arizona law. We know of no federal rule which requires a state to give a person accused of crime a preliminary hearing. The Arizona Constitution, Article II, Sec. 30, A.R.S., provides that "No person shall be prosecuted for felony by information without having had a preliminary examination before a magistrate or having waived such preliminary examination." With respect thereto Rule 79 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure of that State (17 A.R.S.) provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scarbrough v. Dutton
...without more, does not amount to a violation of constitutional rights which would vitiate the subsequent conviction. See Graves v. Eyman, 9 Cir., 1967, 373 F.2d 324; Chester v. People of State of California, 9 Cir., 1966, 355 F.2d 778; Pappillion v. Beto, S.D.Tex., 1966, 257 F.Supp. 502; cf......
-
Kerr v. Dutton
...that case. 2 As a general rule there is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing prior to indictment or trial. Graves v. Eyman, 9 Cir. 1967, 373 F.2d 324, 325; United States v. Luxenberg, 6 Cir. 1967, 374 F. 2d 241, 248, and cases cited; Clarke v. Huff, 1941, 73 App.D.C. 351, 119 F.......
-
Landers v. State ex rel. Eyman
...Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; State v. White, 102 Ariz. 18, 423 P.2d 716 (1967); and is not reviewable by habeas corpus. Graves v. Eyman, 373 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1967). The petitioner challenged the effectiveness of counsel for the reason that defense 'told petitioner to plea (sic) guilty a......
-
Smith v. Peyton, Civ. A. No. 67-C-80-R.
...Constitution there is no requirement of a preliminary hearing. United States v. Luxenberg, 374 F.2d 241 (6th Cir. 1967), Graves v. Eyman, 373 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1967), Dillard v. Bomar, 342 F.2d 789 (6th Cir. Petitioner also claims that there was no evidence to support the verdict. Petition......