Hamilton v. Craven

• Decision Date: 02 August 1971
• Docket Number: No. 51247.,51247.
• Citation: 350 F. Supp. 1251
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: Raymond M. HAMILTON, Petitioner, v. Walter E. CRAVEN, Warden of Folsom State Prison, Represa, Respondent.

350 F. Supp. 1251

Raymond M. HAMILTON, Petitioner, v. Walter E. CRAVEN, Warden of Folsom State Prison, Represa, Respondent.

No. 51247.

United States District Court, N. D. California.

August 2, 1971.

Michael E. Smith, Berkeley, Cal., for petitioner.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen. of Cal., Eric Collins, Robert Granucci, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.

Judgment Affirmed, 9th Cir., 469 F.2d 1394.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ZIRPOLI, District Judge.

Raymond Hamilton brings this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., to secure his release from an allegedly unconstitutional confinement. On September 4 and 16, 1970, this court held an evidentiary hearing. The facts surrounding petitioner's conviction, and the substance of the testimony at his two trials are fully set out in the petition, in People v. Hamilton, 55 Cal.2d 881, 13 Cal.Rptr. 649, 362 P.2d 473 (1961), and People v. Hamilton, 60 Cal.2d 105, 32 Cal.Rptr. 4, 383 P.2d 412 (1963). Nothing further would be served by repeating them in detail here. Relevant facts will be referred to when necessary.

Petitioner asserts the following contentions in support of his application for a writ of habeas corpus:

1. While in jail, a private conversation between petitioner and a personal friend was surreptitiously recorded by the police and later used against him at trial, in violation of due process of law;

2. An offer by petitioner to plead guilty while in jail awaiting trial on a capital charge was later introduced into evidence against him, in violation of due process of law;

3. The prosecutor deliberately and repeatedly flouted petitioner's right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to be accorded a fair trial, and to enjoy equal protection of the laws;

4. Prospective jurors with conscientious scruples against the death penalty were excused for cause from the guilt phase of petitioner's trial, in violation of his right to an impartial jury; and

5. Petitioner further argues that these errors constitute federal constitutional error and are not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt within the meaning of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1966).

Respondents argued that the court may not adjudicate petitioner's claim since he failed to exhaust his presently existing state remedies as to his second contention. Failure to exhaust state remedies as to one ground for relief in a petition stating several grounds warrants a district court's denial of the writ. Howard v. Craven, 306 F.Supp. 730, 732 (C.D.Cal.1969).

Procedural Background and Exhaustion

Petitioner pled not guilty to an information charging two counts of murder. He was tried by a jury, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death on both counts. He appealed directly to the California Supreme Court, which reversed his convictions. People v. Hamilton, 55 Cal.2d 881, 13 Cal.Rptr. 649, 362 P.2d 473 (1961). Petitioner was then retried by a jury and was again convicted of first degree murder. On February 14, 1962, he was sentenced to life imprisonment on count one and to the death penalty on count two. He again appealed directly to the California Supreme Court, which affirmed his convictions but reversed the death sentence. People v. Hamilton, 60 Cal.2d 105, 32 Cal.Rptr. 4, 383 P.2d 412 (1963). On December 30, 1964, petitioner was resentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment on count two.

Petitioner has applied three times for a writ of habeas corpus to the California Supreme Court. The first petition, in Crim. No. 10116, was denied on November 15, 1966, Justice Peters dissenting. The second, in Crim. No. 10850, was denied on February 21, 1967, Justice Peters again dissenting. The third, in Crim. No. 12190, was denied on November 20, 1968, without opinion. Following the second denial, petitioner sought a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. The petition was denied on October 23, 1967, Hamilton v. California, 389 U.S. 921, 88 S.Ct. 243, 19 L.Ed. 2d 271 (1967), Justices Fortas, Douglas and Marshall being of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.

The second claim, the subject of any possible exhaustion deficiencies, was presented to the California Supreme Court on direct appeal, but only as a claim under state law. The court ruled in petitioner's favor, but held that the error was harmless as a matter of state law. People v. Hamilton, 60 Cal.2d 105, 32 Cal.Rptr. 4, 383 P.2d 412 (1963). This claim was subsequently presented to the United States Supreme Court. From the dissenting opinion above cited, it appears that the dissenting justices considered the claim as one under federal law, and questioned whether the admission of defendant's (petitioner's) bargained offer to plead guilty was a per se fourth amendment violation and whether it had been (or should have been) subject to the same fifth amendment test of voluntariness as applies to confessions. Although the majority may have voted to deny certiorari due to petitioner's failure to present this federal claim to state courts, it is impossible to conclude such as a matter of law. Subsequently all of petitioner's claims, with the possible exception of the second claim, were presented to the California Supreme Court in petitioner's most recent petition. It is that possibility with prompts this analysis of exhaustion.

Although this court does not have before it the entire third petition to the California Supreme Court, it does have page 35 of that petition, which clearly alleges that petitioner was raising constitutional questions with regard to the introduction of his withdrawn offer to plead guilty. On this page, as well as on three earlier pages of the petition, petitioner specifically requested a hearing to adduce further facts if the court felt more evidence was required.

This court believes that Castro v. Klinger, 373 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. 1967), is dispositive on the question of exhaustion. In Castro, petitioner after losing on direct appeal in the District Court of Appeal, filed an original petition for habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. This petition was denied without opinion. Petitioner then filed a petition in United States District Court. This petition was denied for failure to exhaust state remedies. Subsequently, petitioner filed a second petition in federal court, alleging an intervening denial by the California Supreme Court of a petition for habeas corpus. The district court again denied for failure to exhaust state remedies.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court on the question of exhaustion. Without either state court petition before it, the court concluded that given the California Supreme Court's inherent power to pursue factual matters by way of remand to a lower court or appointment of a special master, the district court should not speculate as to why the Supreme Court denied the petition, but rather should assume it had done so on the merits.

Here, in setting out his fourth and fifth amendment claims to the California Supreme Court, petitioner specifically requested an evidentiary hearing to supplement the factual record. The Supreme Court had the power to order such a hearing. It failed to do so. What reason prompted the Supreme Court to deny relief without holding a hearing is not a proper subject of speculation for this court. As Judge Ely said in Castro:

"From our standpoint, the failure of the California court to reveal the basis of its denial, whether substantive or procedural, is unfortunate. We cannot, however, by indulging in speculation, foreclose appellant's right to a determination of his claim that a substantial federal right has been infringed. In this case, the right, as well as the duty, of making the first determination as to the validity of appellant's claim of coercion was vested in the courts of California. From the record, we cannot discern that the right has been exercised or the duty performed." Castro v. Klinger, 373 F.2d 847, 850 (9th Cir. 1967).

Since habeas corpus is an equitable remedy, Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), and the exhaustion doctrine one of comity and not jurisdiction, Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 27, 59 S.Ct. 442, 83 L. Ed. 455 (1939), and further, since habeas corpus is to be administered with flexibility and initiative, Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 22 L. Ed.2d 281 (1969), unencumbered by any technical considerations, Miller v. Overholser, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 110, 206 F.2d 415 (1953), with a liberal judicial attitude, Stewart v. Overholser, 87 U.S. App.D.C. 402, 186 F.2d 339 (1951), it would only be fair to conclude that the California Supreme Court may have in substance decided this precise issue on the merits, Castro v. Klinger, supra. Since petitioner has had two direct appeals and three writs of habeas corpus to the California Supreme Court as well as a petition for certiorari before the United States Supreme Court, it is this court's opinion that denying the petition on exhaustion grounds is not disposing of the matter "as law and justice require."

Petitioner's Offer to Plead Guilty

It is undisputed that on August 14, 1959, Inspector Lloyd Jester of the Berkeley Police Department had a conversation with petitioner. It is also undisputed that petitioner was not warned that he had a right to remain silent, to have his attorney present and that anything he said might be used against him.¹ It is also uncontradicted that Inspector Jester told petitioner that the conversation was "off the record." Finally, it is uncontradicted that there were discussions about petitioner's giving evidence regarding alleged narcotics activities of a third party. At this point, versions differ.

Inspector Jester testified at the evidentiary hearing that he came to see petitioner in response to a note requesting a meeting sent to him by petitio...