Huffman v. State of Missouri
Citation | 399 F. Supp. 1196 |
Decision Date | 25 June 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 20746-4.,20746-4. |
Parties | Jimmy W. HUFFMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
R. Thomas Day, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner.
Richard S. Paden, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Missouri, Jefferson City, Mo., for respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner, a convicted state prisoner who is currently confined in the Fordland Honor Camp at Fordland, Missouri, has filed his petition for federal writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of his state conviction and sentence. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis was granted in an earlier order of Court.
The petition, uncontroverted records, and official records of a previous post-conviction proceeding reveal the following course of events. On October 8, 1946 petitioner, at the age of sixteen years, was sentenced by the Circuit Court of Howell County, Missouri to a term of life imprisonment following petitioner's plea of guilty to a charge of murder in the first degree. Petitioner did not appeal the judgment of conviction or imposition of sentence. Twenty years later in September of 1966, petitioner filed a motion under Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R. in the Circuit Court of Shannon County, Missouri to set aside the judgment of conviction and to vacate sentence. This motion was denied following an evidentiary hearing in the trial court. That denial was affirmed on appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court. Huffman v. State, 451 S.W.2d 21 (1970). Petitioner thereafter sought federal habeas corpus relief in this Court. His petition was in that action was dismissed for failure to exhaust state post-conviction remedies. Huffman v. Swenson, No. 18,199-4 (W.D.Mo. June 4, 1970). On January 12, 1971, petitioner filed a successive motion in the Circuit Court of Howell County under Missouri Rule 27.26. That motion was denied without hearing on July 16, 1971. Petitioner's appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court from that denial was unsuccessful. Huffman v. State, 487 S.W. 2d 549 (Mo.1972). The instant petition was filed on December 26, 1972.
In the initial petition filed herein, petitioner raised numerous contentions in support of his argument that his state conviction in 1946 was constitutionally invalid. These contentions and allegations were identical to those raised in his second 27.26 motion, and were as follows:
In support of those contentions, petitioner made the following factual allegations:
At the evidentiary hearing held in this cause, on June 11, 1974, petitioner's counsel was granted leave to amend the petition in the instant cause so as to present only the following contentions and allegations:
At the hearing, petitioner's counsel advised that petitioner did not wish to pursue the contentions and allegations raised in his initial petition not stated in (a) through (d) immediately above.
It appears from the files and records of petitioner's prior state post-conviction proceedings that he has presented to the highest available state courts, in substantially the same form, the contentions he seeks to assert herein. Rather than hold petitioner to the technical requirements of exhaustion of state post-conviction remedies prior to a consideration of his claims on the merits, and in order to avoid further litigation of the claims petitioner asserts herein, the Court has treated the contentions herein as exhausted for the purpose of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Russell v. Missouri, 511 F.2d 861 (1975).
At the hearing on the instant petition, petitioner was in the interest of justice permitted to adduce evidence in support of his contentions in addition to that which was offered in the state post-conviction proceedings. From the record of the state post-conviction proceedings, and the testimony and evidence received in this proceeding, the Court makes the following findings and conclusions.
Petitioner's challenge to the validity of his state conviction and sentence relates primarily to the constitutional validity of his plea of guilty entered on October 8, 1946. Petitioner's claim that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel due to the ineffective representation afforded by his attorneys is immaterial in his attempt to impeach his plea of guilty, except to the extent it bears on the issues of whether the plea was voluntary and intelligently...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zacek v. Brewer
...of Wisconsin, 392 F.Supp. 35, 37 (E.D.Wis.1975); Krider v. Wolff, 396 F.Supp. 741, 742 (D.Neb.1974); and Huffman v. State of Missouri, 399 F.Supp. 1196, 1201--1202 (W.D.Mo., W.D.1975). In State v. Burtlow, 210 N.W.2d 438, 439 (Iowa 1973), this court declared that 'a guilty plea voluntarily ......
-
State v. Lueder
...86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84, in 1966, and that the rule in Kent is generally held not to be retroactive, citing Huffman v. State of Missouri, 399 F.Supp. 1196 (W.D.Mo.1975); Akins v. Cardwell, 500 F.2d 47 (9th Cir. 1974); Harris v. Procunier, 498 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. en banc 1974); Brumley v......
-
Mitchell v. Wyrick, 82-1525
...approved the transcript. Mere absence of a perfect transcript does not necessarily deny one due process of law. Huffman v. State of Missouri, 399 F.Supp. 1196 (W.D.Mo.1975), aff'd, 527 F.2d 899 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 924, 96 S.Ct. 2634, 49 L.Ed.2d 379 (1976); United States ex re......
-
Mitchell v. Wyrick
...aff'd, 420 F.2d 779 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1067, 90 S.Ct. 1506, 25 L.Ed.2d 689 (1970); Huffman v. State of Missouri, 399 F.Supp. 1196, 1208 (W.D.Mo.1975), aff'd, 527 F.2d 899 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 924, 96 S.Ct. 2634, 49 L.Ed.2d 379 (1976). A due process issue is rai......