Hairston v. Peyton

• Decision Date: 15 May 1967
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 67-C-18-D.
• Citation: 268 F. Supp. 229
• Parties: Jimmy Ray HAIRSTON, Petitioner, v. C. C. PEYTON, Superintendent of Virginia State Penitentiary, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

268 F. Supp. 229

Jimmy Ray HAIRSTON, Petitioner, v. C. C. PEYTON, Superintendent of Virginia State Penitentiary, Respondent.

Civ. A. No. 67-C-18-D.

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

May 15, 1967.

Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for respondent.

OPINION and JUDGMENT

DALTON, District Judge.

This case comes to the court upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed by Jimmy Ray Hairston in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Petitioner is currently serving a term of life imprisonment in the Virginia State Penitentiary, pursuant to a conviction for murder by the Corporation Court for the City of Danville, Virginia on January 25, 1965. At his trial before a jury, petitioner was represented by court appointed counsel. No appeal was taken from his conviction.

A habeas corpus hearing was conducted by the State court in Danville on June 10, 1966, as a result of a petition by the prisoner. Petitioner was represented by court appointed counsel and was afforded an opportunity to present testimony in his own behalf. The writ was denied by an order entered June 16, 1966. Petitioner's writ of error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia was denied on March 7, 1967.

Petitioner now seeks a writ of habeas corpus from this court, alleging inadequate representation by counsel, and the systematic exclusion of negroes from the Grand Jury and the trial jury.

The pertinent facts can be recited briefly: Petitioner was arrested on September 6, 1964, upon a warrant charging him with the murder of his wife. Upon arrival at the Detective Bureau of the City of Danville, a statement was taken from petitioner and signed by him. At the November 1964 term of the Grand Jury of the Corporation Court for the City of Danville, an indictment was returned charging the petitioner with murder. On October 14, 1964 the Corporation Court for the City of Danville ordered the petitioner committed to Central State Hospital for mental care and observation. Upon notification that the petitioner was not mentally ill, the petitioner was ordered returned for trial. A jury trial was held on January 25, 1965 and petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. A more detailed presentation of some of the facts is covered later in this opinion.

Petitioner's allegation, concerning inadequate representation by counsel, merely states that his attorneys failed to point out to the trial court that petitioner was being denied his constitutional rights. No mention is made of which rights were denied but the record shows that a claim of inadequate representation by counsel might have been based on these charges: (1) Counsel failed to adequately raise the question of petitioner's insanity (2) Counsel failed to advise petitioner of his right to appeal (3) Counsel called undue notice to the fact that petitioner was a negro and thus encouraged the potential racial prejudices of the trial jury.

Regarding the matter of insanity, petitioner's attorneys appear to have acted properly. Both the doctor at the Central State Hospital and petitioner's own physician stated that petitioner was not mentally ill and could distinguish right from wrong, although petitioner's physician testified that petitioner was emotionally unstable and subject to uncontrollable seizures. Petitioner's attorneys offered this evidence for what it was worth and submitted an instruction on insanity which the trial court refused. Petitioner's attorneys felt that this testimony was the major factor in securing a sentence of life imprisonment rather than death. It appears that petitioner's attorneys used the evidence of insanity as effectively as possible, and it is difficult to see what more they could have done.

The failure of petitioner's attorneys to advise the petitioner of his right to appeal raises a more serious question and will require further examination of the facts. Petitioner was arrested immediately after the crime and signed a full confession. Petitioner did not take the stand at his trial to refute his confession and petitioner has never claimed, either at the trial or in the habeas corpus proceedings, that the confession was improper. The record also discloses evidence of at least one proper attempt by petitioner to assault his wife. The petitioner's wife was stabbed thirty-eight (38) times with an ice pick, and the hideousness of the crime caused petitioner's attorneys to fear that petitioner would receive a death sentence upon conviction. In view of the unrefuted confession and the other evidence, petitioner's attorneys did not abandon hope of acquittal, but as a practical matter their main hope was to save petitioner from a death sentence. The attorneys succeeded in this matter and petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. The record discloses unrepudiated evidence that petitioner was satisfied with the life imprisonment sentence and felt that the attorneys had saved his life. Under such circumstances petitioner's attorneys felt it was needless to mention the right to appeal, since a new trial would once again expose petitioner...