Mapson v. Cox, Civ. A. No. 70-C-7-C.

• Citation: 313 F. Supp. 465
• Decision Date: 21 May 1970
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 70-C-7-C.
• Parties: Eugene Samuel MAPSON, Petitioner, v. J. D. COX, Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary, Respondent.
• Court: United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)

313 F. Supp. 465

Eugene Samuel MAPSON, Petitioner, v. J. D. COX, Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary, Respondent.

Civ. A. No. 70-C-7-C.

United States District Court, W. D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division.

May 21, 1970.

Gerald L. Baliles, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for respondent.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT

DALTON, Chief Judge.

This proceeding comes before the court on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in forma pauperis by Eugene Samuel Mapson, a state prisoner, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond, and filed herein on the 12th of March, 1970.

Petitioner Mapson is currently serving a life sentence in the Virginia State Penitentiary pursuant to a judgment of the Corporation Court of the City of Charlottesville, imposed on October 27, 1965, for first-degree murder. Mapson entered a plea of guilty during his criminal trial in said Corporation Court, after having originally plead not guilty and having asked for a jury trial.

The record reflects that on March 6, 1968 the Corporation Court of the City of Charlottesville denied Mapson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and that the Virgina Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed such a denial on the 21st of January, 1969. It appears that the petitioner has exhausted his available state remedies in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as interpreted by Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed. 837 (1963).

The petitioner seeks to have his conviction set aside based upon the following allegations. (These allegations are similar to the ones which were considered by the state courts.)

1. That he was arrested upon a warrant that wasn't based upon probable cause;

2. That not only was petitioner deprived of a prompt preliminary hearing but the evidence presented at said hearing was insufficient;

3. That no corpus delecti was proved at his trial, nor was the evidence sufficient to convict the petitioner of first-degree murder;

4. Finally, that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance, which deprived him of his constitutional rights.

An examination of the complete record before us does not present this court with any other alternative than to deny the relief Mapson seeks to obtain. The record, together with applicable case law, points to only one conclusion, namely, a dismissal of Mapson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This court, in analyzing the allegations as raised by the petitioner, can come to no other conclusion for the following reasons.

The first allegation centers on petitioner's arrest, an arrest which he claims was based upon an invalid warrant. The record clearly shows that Mapson was arrested in Norfolk, Virginia pursuant to his recent escape from the state convict road camp near Charlottesville, Virginia. After receiving information, via teletype, that the petitioner had escaped from the road camp, police officers of the Norfolk Division apprehended Mapson at the home of his wife. At the time of apprehension Mapson was hiding out in the attic of the house. (See Transcript Pages 98-100). As mentioned long ago in United States v. Cotter, 80 F.Supp. 590 (E.D.Va., 1948), when reasonable or probable cause is the basis for an arrest, the mere fact that it was made without a warrant, does not make the arrest invalid. The petititioner, after he was in custody on the escape violation, was presented with the warrant charging him with first-degree murder. This court can in no way see how the petitioner was denied any constitutional rights in his first allegation.

The next double edged claim raised by Mapson focuses upon the alleged undue delay in his receiving a preliminary hearing, as well as, the insufficiency of the evidence presented at said hearing. This court is guided by the established principle expressed in Blankenship v. Peyton, 295 F.Supp. 16, 20-21 (W.D.Va., 1969) that under Virginia law

* * * the requirement of a preliminary hearing of one arrested on a charge of a felony is not jurisdictional and that its denial does not violate "due process" and "equal protection" of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Petitioner Mapson was not only granted a preliminary hearing but it appears that any questions raised as to "undue delay" must be attributed to Mapson himself. The record does not reflect that the petitioner was prejudiced, in any way, by the lateness of the preliminary hearing on the 29th of April, 1965.

The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in Snyder v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 1009, 121 S.E.2d 452, 456 (1961) dealt with the preliminary hearing question. The court stated that:

* * * (w)e are of the opinion that the requirement for such a (preliminary) hearing is procedural only, and not jurisdictional, and any defect in connection therewith must be raised before trial, or forever lost as a grounds for objection. (Word Added)

Recent cases support the above mentioned concept. See Blankenship v. Peyton, 295 F.Supp. 16 (1969) and Dunnivan v. Peyton, 292 F.Supp. 173 (1968).

The third allegation raised by Mapson deals with the sufficiency of the evidence, as presented during his criminal trial on the 16th of September, 1965. Included in petitioner's claim of insufficiency of evidence is the allegation that no corpus delecti was proven at his trial. We note that during the criminal trial petitioner Mapson changed his original plea of not guilty to one of guilty. This was done after the petitioner had conferred with his counsel, Mr. S. W. Tucker, Esq. (See Transcript Pages 94-97). The law is very clear on the point which Mapson raises herein. As stated by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and concurred in by this court on a number of occasions,

* * * (w)e think that the transcript of the trial demonstrates that the evidence was sufficient. Even if we entertained doubts about this, there would be no basis for a federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding to undertake a broad review of the conviction in the state court. There is a difference between a conviction based upon evidence deemed insufficient as a matter of state criminal law and one so totally devoid of evidentiary support as to raise a due process issue. It is only in the latter situation that there has been a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, affording the state prisoner a remedy in a federal court on a writ of habeas corpus.

Grundler v. North Carolina, 283 F.2d 798, 801 (1960). The record illustrates quite clearly that the conviction was not "totally devoid of evidentiary support" so as to raise a due process issue. The Fourth Circuit continued by saying in Grundler that:

* * * (N)ormally, the admissibility of evidence, the sufficiency of evidence, and instructions to the jury in state trials are matters of state law and procedure not involving federal constitutional issues. It is only in circumstances impugning fundamental fairness or infringing specific constitutional protections that a federal question is presented. Id. at 802.

Not only does the foregoing refute petitioner's claim, but the recent case of Peyton v. King, 210 Va. 194, 169 S.E.2d 569 (1969), clearly shows that Mapson's plea of guilty waived all defenses which he could make, except those of a jurisdictional nature. The court in the King case said that:

* * * (a) voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty by an accused is, in reality, a self-supplied conviction authorizing imposition of the punishment fixed by law. It is a waiver of all defenses other than those jurisdictional, effective as such not only in the lower court but as well in this court. Id. at 571. (Emphasis Added)

See Crutchfield v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 291, 46 S.E.2d 340 (1948). In line with the foregoing, it seems quite obvious that petitioner's third claim is one which does not raise a jurisdictional matter, and likewise is a claim without sufficient legal basis so as to afford the petitioner relief.

Finally, Mapson contends that during his criminal trial he had ineffective representation of counsel which deprived him of certain constitutional rights. The petitioner supplements the above contention by pointing out that he was (a) coerced into making his eventual plea of guilty by his attorney, and (b) that his attorney failed to bring in any relevant facts helpful to the petitioner.

The general contention of ineffective representation of counsel, more so than any other allegation, has continually been alleged in petitions for habeas corpus relief. A voluminous number of cases have dealt with the question involved herein. In...