LaFaver v. Turner, 8006.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 8006.,8006. |
| Citation | 345 F.2d 519 |
| Parties | Walter LaFAVER, Appellant, v. John TURNER, Warden of Utah State Prison, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Peter F. Breitenstein, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Ronald N. Boyce, Salt Lake City, Utah (A. Pratt Kesler, Atty. Gen., of Utah, with him on brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and LEWIS and SETH, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from judgment of the District Court discharging a writ of habeas corpus. The application for the writ attacked the judgment in a Utah state habeas corpus proceedings involving petitioner's claim that his guilty plea on a state charge was coerced and that he was denied the right of an effective appeal to the Utah Supreme Court.
The federal court entertained the petitioner's application, apointed counsel and conducted a full hearing pursuant to which it found that petitioner had exhausted his state remedies and that he had been deprived of his constitutional right to an effective appeal from an adverse judgment in the state habeas corpus proceedings. The Court accordingly granted the writ but stayed the order for a period of thirty days to afford either party an opportunity to appeal to this court. The petitioner was ordered released unless within twenty days from the expiration of appeal time the Utah Supreme Court afforded him a review of the state court judgment with the assistance of counsel; provided, that if the appeal were granted, petitioner would remain in the custody of the state pending final decision of the Utah Supreme Court. Jurisdiction over the matter was expressly retained pending the execution of the substantive provisions of the order. See LaFaver v. Turner, D.C., 231 F.Supp. 895.
No appeal from the provisional order of the federal District Court was taken or attempted. Petitioner's appeal to the Supreme Court of Utah was "reinstated" and the same counsel appointed to represent him. The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the record and affirmed the judgment. The state thereupon moved to dismiss the federal habeas corpus proceedings on the grounds that the conditions of the federal court's order had been fully satisfied. The federal trial court then conducted another hearing at which petitioner and his counsel were present. Pursuant to this hearing, the trial court specifically found that the action of the Supreme Court affirming the state District Court's judgment was in compliance with its provisional judgment and "as a consequence thereof a release of the petitioner was abated". Having thus vouchsafed the full right of an appeal from the state court judgment, the trial court proceeded, as if out of an abundance of precaution (i. e. see Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 313, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 and Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 419, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837), to independently determine the coercion issue based upon the full record as developed in the state habeas corpus proceedings.1
Upon consideration of this issue, the trial court specifically found that the guilty plea was not coerced, but on the contrary, the "facts demonstrate that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sweeten v. Sneddon
...unreasonable, if not impossible, to stop short of this one. Cf. La Faver v. Turner, 231 F.Supp. 895, 900 (D. Utah 1964), aff'd, 345 F.2d 519 (10th Cir. 1965). This case involves a problem of furnishing counsel to one individual under extraordinary facts, and it is upon the basis of these fa......
-
Walker, In re, Cr. 10131
...a remedy "to suit the needs of the case" (In re Pfeiffer, 264 Cal.App.2d 470, 477, 70 Cal.Rptr. 831, 836; LaFaver v. Turner, 10 Cir., 345 F.2d 519, 520), and to 'dispose of the prisoner as will best serve the interests of justice. . . .' (Aderhold v. O'Neill, 5 Cir., 66 F.2d 85; see also In......
-
Gallegos v. Turner
...appeal which the state accords to persons of means. La Faver v. Turner, 231 F. Supp. 895 (D.C.Utah 1964); see also La Faver v. Turner, 345 F.2d 519 (10th Cir. 1965). Despite the state's argument that the Tenth Circuit has not regarded habeas corpus proceedings collaterally attacking a judgm......
-
Pfeiffer, In re
...Courts are empowered to fashion a remedy for deprivation of a constitutional right 'to suit the needs of the case.' (LaFaver v. Turner, 10 Cir., 345 F.2d 519, 520.) The decision in Wilson v. Reagan, supra, 354 F.2d 45, denied to California the right to reprosecute Reagan on the same charge ......