Page v. Coiner
| Citation | 283 F. Supp. 500 |
| Decision Date | 26 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C-68-8-E. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | Harold PAGE, Petitioner, v. Ira M. COINER, Warden of the West Virginia State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
No attorney for petitioner.
C. Donald Robertson, Atty. Gen. of West Virginia, Morton I. Taber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, W. Va., for respondent.
The Petitioner, Harold Page, is serving a life sentence imposed by the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County on January 11, 1954, upon his plea of guilty to armed robbery. Having exhausted the available state remedies, the Petitioner seeks relief in this Court under the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C., Section 2254.
The essence of Petitioner's claim is that he was denied assistance of counsel on November 2, 1953, at his arraignment and on January 11, 1954, at his sentencing. He makes two other claims concerning the life sentence for armed robbery — that it is a cruel and unusual punishment and that he is being denied equal protection and due process of law.
The latter two claims, which deal with the permissibility of this sentence, are without merit. The code section under which he was sentenced provides, in part:
"If any person commit, or attempt to commit, robbery by partial strangulation or suffocation, or by striking or beating, or by other violence to the person, or by the threat or presenting of firearms or other deadly weapon or instrumentality whatsoever, he shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction, shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than ten years. * * *"1
The courts have held this statute to be constitutional and that it permits the imposition of a life sentence.2
The remaining two grounds, concerning the denial of the assistance of counsel on November 2, 1953, and January 11, 1954, raise factual issues. A hearing was held on these issues in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia, on November 1, 1966, and December 2, 1966.
This Court is satisfied that the Petitioner's right to be heard in a full and fair evidentiary hearing, required by Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1962), has been complied with by these state court hearings. In the considered judgment of this Court, all the available evidence necessary for a determination of this matter is presently before the Court on the record and there is no need for an additional hearing here.
Although certain court orders reflect that Petitioner was assisted by counsel, the crux of Petitioner's claim is that these orders are erroneous because he was in fact not assisted by counsel. To support his contentions the Petitioner produced a letter and an affidavit allegedly written by the attorney who was appointed to represent him stating that the attorney had never aided or represented the Petitioner. The Petitioner also submitted the signed statements of his three co-defendants and statements from two other witnesses as to what occurred in the courtroom. There was also a letter and an affidavit from an attorney who was chairman of the legal ethics committee during the period of these proceedings in regard to an inquiry made about the representation provided the Petitioner.
The Respondent, in the hearing, challenged the authenticity of these documents supposedly written by the lawyer appointed to represent the Petitioner, and in general rebutted Petitioner's evidence.
Neither the state trial judge nor the attorney who was appointed to represent the Petitioner testified, the attorney having died a short time after the period in question. Also, there is no transcript of either the arraignment or the sentencing.
After considering all the matters presented, the state court denied the relief sought and remanded the Petitioner to the custody of the Warden of the West Virginia State Penitentiary.
This Court in reviewing transcripts of proceedings and records of cases in the state courts must accept the verity of court orders. Particularly in the area of habeas corpus, where this Court is called upon to review a great number of state proceedings, the importance of court orders accurately reflecting the matters which transpired is of vital importance. This is not to minimize other forms of evidence, it is only giving court orders the import they are intended to have. Therefore, this Court believes it must be considered the exceptional case in which court orders cannot be relied upon as accurate chronicles of what took place.
In the instant case the court order for November 2, 1953, states:
"Harold Page, who stands indicted for Felony, was this day set to the bar in the custody of the Sheriff, and thereupon for plea in this behalf the defendant in proper person and by E. K. Reyman (sic), his counsel, pleads guilty as the State in Her indictment against him hath alleged. * * *"
On December 3, 1953, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conley v. Dingess
...Franklin and Ponto v. Brown, 73 W.Va. 727, 81 S.E. 405 (1914); Young v. Boles, 343 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1965); and Page v. Coiner, 283 F.Supp. 500 (N.D. W.Va. 1968). The legislature, in its wisdom, has mandated that bail shall not be allowed after a conviction for armed robbery. The statute h......
-
Lycans v. Bordenkircher
...and acceded to this interpretation of the West Virginia statute. See Young v. Boles, 343 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1965); Page v. Coiner, 283 F.Supp. 500 (N.D.W.Va.1968); Young v. Boles, 270 F.Supp. 847 In the several decisions of this Court which address the point, however obliquely, it is recogn......
-
State ex rel. Faircloth v. Catlett
...195 (1930); Franklin and Ponto v. Brown, 73 W.Va. 727, 81 S.E. 405 (1914); Young v. Boles, 343 F.2d 136 (CA4 1965); and Page v. Coiner, 283 F.Supp. 500 (N.D.W.Va.1968). The above statute's language being clear, there is no need for interpretation, only application. While I perhaps have join......