Johnson v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nebraska, 75-1458
| Citation | 519 F.2d 738 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1458,75-1458 |
| Parties | Artis X. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.
The petitioner is a Nebraska state prisoner presently serving an eight to ten-year sentence upon his conviction for manslaughter. In this action for mandamus relief, the petitioner seeks to compel the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska to consider the merits of his motion for habeas corpus previously dismissed by the court for want of exhaustion.
The records in this case show that the Nebraska authorities had initially charged the petitioner with second degree murder, and that the petitioner proceeded to trial on this charge. However, during jury selection procedures, a plea bargain was decided upon by which the petitioner would plead guilty to manslaughter. An amended information was filed and the petitioner pleaded guilty to this lesser charge.
The petitioner appealed the validity of his plea, contending that the plea was not voluntary. In support of this contention, the petitioner apparently argued that a transcript of the proceedings demonstrated that he was confused when he entered his plea. The Nebraska Supreme Court was unpersuaded, and affirmed the conviction. State v. Johnson, 187 Neb. 26, 187 N.W.2d 99 (1971).
In 1972, the petitioner sought post-conviction relief in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The petitioner alleged, as he had on his direct appeal, that his plea of guilty was not voluntary. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that he had been mentally incompetent and without the effective assistance of counsel at the time of his plea and his sentencing. The District Court acknowledged that the petitioner had presented the voluntariness issue to the Nebraska Supreme Court. However, the court dismissed the entire petition, holding that exhausted claims in a habeas corpus petition could not be considered unless and until all claims in the petition had been exhausted.
Subsequent to this 1972 dismissal by the District Court, the petitioner made several attempts to demonstrate before the District Court that he had since exhausted all his claims for habeas corpus relief. These attempts were labeled by petitioner (and treated by the District Court) as post-dismissal motions in the original proceeding. In the most recent of these motions in the District Court, the petitioner cited the docket numbers of two Nebraska cases which, he alleged, would indicate that he had exhausted all his claims. The District Court, in an order entered February 14, 1975, noted that it had been unable to find the cited decisions, and warned that the cause would be dismissed unless the petitioner, within twenty days, submitted copies of the Nebraska decisions or citations to the Nebraska Reports where the decisions could be found. In response, the petitioner advised the court that he had cited one of the docket numbers incorrectly and supplied the court with the corrected number. The District Court was able to find the newly numbered case, but found that it had been dismissed by the Nebraska Supreme Court for failure to file briefs. The District Court concluded that the petition should remain dismissed for want of exhaustion.
The petitioner then initiated this mandamus action to compel the District Court to consider the merits of his petition. 1 Although the procedural history of this action can only be deemed irregular, we assume, arguendo, that the irregularities are not fatal to the instant proceeding. 2
The findings of the District Court as to which of the petitioner's several claims have been presented to the Nebraska Supreme Court provide no basis for issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus. However, the legal rationale of the District Court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zemina v. Solem
...claims, all may be returned to the state judicial system. Triplett v. Wyrick, supra; Johnson v. United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, 519 F.2d 738 (8th Cir. 1975); Blunt v. Wolff, 501 F.2d 1138 (8th Cir. Petitioner's claims V, VI, VIII, IX and XI2 are clearly unexhauste......
-
Gaines v. Thieret, 85 C 10386
... ... 85 C 10386 ... United States District Court, N.D.Illinois, E.D ... August 5, 1987. 665 F ... Court's discussion in Swain, it seems to us that Petitioner could have, and perhaps should ... , 531 F.2d 682, 684 (2d Cir.1976); Johnson v. United States District Court, 519 F.2d 738, ... ...
-
Rose v. Lundy
...of the totality of the circumstances and therefore necessitate examination of the entire record. Compare Johnson v. United States District Court, 519 F.2d 738, 740 (CA8 1975) (prisoner's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea intertwined with his claims that at the of the plea he......
-
Balthazar v. Superior Ct. of Com. of Mass.
...exhausted less than all of his interrelated claims, a federal court may decline to hear any of the claims. Johnson v. U. S. District Court of Nebraska, 519 F.2d 738 (8th Cir. 1975). But see Tyler v. Swenson, 483 F.2d 611 (8th Cir. 5 By affidavit, petitioner's counsel explains his decision n......