Jones v. Crouse, 8584.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 8584.,8584. |
| Citation | 360 F.2d 157 |
| Parties | Robert Jackson JONES, Appellant, v. Sherman H. CROUSE, Warden, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Charles S. Fisher, Jr., Topeka, Kan., for appellant.
Park McGee, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Kansas (Robert C. Londerholm, Atty. Gen. of Kansas, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges, and BOHANON, District Judge.
Petitioner, an inmate of the Kansas State Penitentiary, appeals from an order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus which was entered without a hearing.
The record discloses that Jones entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Pratt County, Kansas, on September 9, 1963, to an information charging forgery in the second degree and passing and uttering a forged check. He was sentenced to a term of one to ten years on each of the two counts, with the sentences to run concurrently. No direct appeal was taken from the judgment and sentence but appellant on July 15, 1964, attacked them by motion under K.S.A. 60-1507. On August 5, 1964, the sentencing court summarily denied the motion. Jones then filed a notice of appeal and the sentencing court thereafter on August 18, 1964, entered an order permitting him to appeal in forma pauperis. On March 17, 1965, an attorney was appointed by the sentencing court, pursuant to Kansas Supreme Court Rule 121 promulgated October 16, 1964, to represent Jones in his state appeal. The record is silent as to what has happened in the state appeal, so we must assume it has not been argued or decided.
Jones, on March 1, 1965, filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court below and on April 5, 1965, it was dismissed without an evidentiary hearing and upon the basis of the pleadings, files and records. The petition, drawn by the petitioner, recites in layman's language that the plea of guilty was not understandingly made and a denial of counsel.
The trial court denied the petition without a hearing because petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies and there was no showing that such remedies were inadequate or ineffective.
We agree that Jones had not exhausted his state remedies but the record does show an unusual lapse of time since the notice of appeal was filed in the state trial court without a determination of the appeal. Petitioner pointed out this lapse of time in both his petition and traverse. Now, more than eighteen months have expired since the notice of appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Dominico
...stated that 'an inordinate, excessive and inexcusable delay may very well amount to a denial of due process . . ..' Jones v. Crouse, 360 F.2d 157, 158 (10th Cir. 1966); Odsen v. Moore, 445 F.2d 806, 807 (1st Cir. 1971). This principle also applies where there is a direct appeal rather than ......
-
Doescher v. Estelle
...court should hold a hearing to determine the cause of the delay. Tramel v. State of Idaho, 459 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1972); Jones v. Crouse, 360 F.2d 157 (10th Cir. 1966); Clark v. Crouse, 352 F.2d 507 (10th Cir. 1965); Finan v. Crouse, 352 F.2d 507 (10th Cir. 1965). The Tenth Circuit has dete......
-
Donovan v. Delgado
...430. 26 United States ex rel. Noia v. Fay (2 Cir. 1962), 300 F.2d 345, affd. 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837; Jones v. Crouse (10 Cir. 1966), 360 F.2d 157. 27 Wiggins v. Ragen (7 Cir. 1956), 238 F. 2d 28 The availability of the said state procedures is consistent with the purpose ......
-
U.S. v. Dago
...v. Kansas, 356 F.2d 654, 657 (10th Cir.1966) (same). And such delays may excuse exhaustion requirements. See, e.g., Jones v. Crouse, 360 F.2d 157, 158 (10th Cir.1966) (remanding for a district court to excuse exhaustion if an eighteen-month delay in adjudicating appeal from denial of post-c......