Pratt v. State of Maine, Misc. No. 298.
| Citation | 408 F.2d 311 |
| Decision Date | 13 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 298. |
| Parties | Kimberly R. PRATT, Petitioner, v. STATE OF MAINE, and Margaret B. Brown, State of Maine Probation and Parole Officer, Respondents. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
Henry N. Berry, III, Portland, Me., on application.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, and McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner moves for reconsideration of this court's denial of a certificate of probable cause, stating that counsel was misled by the district court clerk as to the meaning of our rules and procedure. With the passing observation that misinformation by a clerk is never an excuse, and that in any event minimum caution would suggest that inquiries be made of the clerk of the court whose procedure is in doubt, we grant the motion and reconsider the request.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge of violating a Maine statute under which her offense was a felony, and received a suspended sentence. Thereafter she claimed that this statute had been repealed, by implication, by a later statute describing her offense as a misdemeanor, and on this basis sought relief in the state court. Relief denied, she did not appeal, satisfied that the question had been decided against her in another very recent case by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, State v. Taplin, Me., 1968, 247 A.2d 919. Instead, she sought habeas corpus in the federal district court. Her petition was dismissed; the district court denied a request for a certificate of probable cause, and she now seeks the certificate from us. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed.R. App.P. 22(b); 1 Cir.R. 8.
We accept petitioner's assertion that she has adequately pursued her state court remedies. The extensive and careful opinion in the Taplin case reveals that further action there would be useless. On the other hand, her attack upon that decision is without precedent, cited or otherwise. It is for the state court, short of some constitutional infirmity, to interpret its own statutes. Brady v. Maryland, 1963, 373 U.S. 83, 90, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215; State of Washington v. Maricopa Co., 9 Cir., 1945, 152 F. 2d 556, cert. denied 327 U.S. 799, 66 S. Ct. 900, 90 L.Ed. 1024; cf. Note, Federal Question Abstention: Justice Frankfurter's Doctrine in an Activist Era, 80 Harv.L.Rev. 604 (1967). Petitioner shows no such infirmity. She gains nothing by asserting that the decision was so unreasonable as to violate "due process of law."* See United States v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sarzen v. Gaughan
...n. 2 (1st Cir. 1971); Perry v. Blackledge, 453 F.2d 856 (4th Cir. 1971); Lucas v. Michigan, 420 F.2d 259 (6th Cir. 1970); Pratt v. Maine, 408 F.2d 311 (1st Cir. 1969). The Commonwealth contends that this well-accepted doctrine should not be applied to Sarzen because recourse to the state co......
-
Walsh v. Picard, No. 71-1127
...the state court's decision in the Walsh case excuses them from further pursuing the issue in the Massachusetts courts. Pratt v. State of Maine, 1 Cir., 1969, 408 F.2d 311. 1 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, as well as the district court, was understandably concerned that literal ap......
-
McMichaels v. Hancock, 7607.
...interpretation of its statute, and its conclusion that the earlier one had not been repealed, raise no such question. Pratt v. Maine, 1 Cir., 1969, 408 F.2d 311; see Bell v. Maryland, 1964, 378 U.S. 226, 84 S.Ct. 1814, 12 L.Ed.2d 822. Nor does the petitioner have a constitutional claim base......
-
United States v. Stubblefield, 18735.
... ... State Police officers near Jackson, Michigan on October 5. A ... ...