Rigsbee v. Parkinson
| Decision Date | 19 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1573,76-1573 |
| Citation | 545 F.2d 56 |
| Parties | William Alton RIGSBEE, Jr., Appellant, v. J. D. PARKINSON, Warden, South Dakota Penitentiary, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Keith R. Strange, Sioux Falls, S.D., for appellant.
William J. Janklow, Atty. Gen., and March Weber Tobias, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, S.D., for appellee.
Before LAY, ROSS and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner William Rigsbee appeals from an order of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
Petitioner was convicted in South Dakota state court of possessing more than one ounce of marijuana. This conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the South Dakota Supreme Court. 1 Petitioner is presently confined in the South Dakota Penitentiary.
Throughout the state court proceedings, petitioner argued that a large quantity of marijuana should be suppressed because the police did not have probable cause to arrest him and subsequently search his car. The state circuit court denied the suppression motion after holding a hearing on the matter at which the petitioner as well as the arresting officers testified. The state supreme court held:
The police officers had probable cause based on the informant's tip to stop the defendant on the highway. Since the informant told them that there was contraband in the car, they had probable cause to conduct a search on the spot or at the police station.
State v. Rigsbee, 233 N.W.2d 312, 315 (S.D.1975).
After exhausting his state remedies, Rigsbee filed the instant habeas petition pressing the same fourth amendment claims urged upon the state courts. The district court found that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest the petitioner and search his car. However the district court, after holding a hearing on the issue, determined that petitioner voluntarily consented to the search. Accordingly, the district court denied the writ. The petitioner now appeals from this judgment.
Subsequent to the decision of the district court, the United States Supreme Court decided Stone v. Powell, --- U.S. ----, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). The Court held:
(W)here the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, the Constitution does not require that a state prisoner be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.
Id. at ----, 96 S.Ct. at 3046. (footnote omitted). At least two other circuits have applied Stone retroactively, see Bracco v. Reed, 540 F.2d 1019, 1020 (9th Cir. 1975); Chavez v. Rodriguez, 540 F.2d 500, 502 (10th Cir. 1976), and this circuit has done so sub silentio, see Poindexter v. Wolff, 540 F.2d 390, 391 (8th Cir. 1976); Roach v. Parratt, 541 F.2d 772 (8th Cir. 1976). Cf. Caver v. Alabama, 537 F.2d 1333, 1335-1336 (5th Cir. 1976). Because Stone effected no new formulation of the exclusionary rule and because the Supreme Court did not limit Stone to prospective application only, we apply its mandate to this case. Bracco v. Reed, supra, 540 F.2d at 1020; Chavez v. Rodriquez, supra, 540 F.2d at 502.
We have reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing in state circuit court as well as the opinion of the South Dakota Supreme Court, 2 and find that petitioner was accorded an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his fourth amendment claims in the South Dakota state courts. The petitioner was afforded a complete opportunity to tell his side of the story and to examine the officers who arrested him and seized the marijuana. Thus petitioner's claim fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 3
The order denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.
1 State v. Rigsbee, 233 N.W.2d 312 (S.D.1975). A full...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Means v. Solem
...criteria applied." This is not a case like United States ex rel. Rigsbee v. Parkinson, 407 F.Supp. 1019 (D.S.D.1976), aff'd 545 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1976), where neither the trial judge nor the state appellate court addressed the issues relevant to a determination of violation of the statute. ......
-
Mack v. Cupp
...accord, Dupont v. Hall, 555 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 1977); Cole v. Estelle, 548 F.2d 1164, 1164 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1977); Rigsbee v. Parkinson, 545 F.2d 56, 57 (8th Cir. 1976); Chavez v. Rodriguez, 540 F.2d 500, 502 (10th Cir. The Supreme Court has not yet delineated the perimeters of "full and f......
-
Stocker v. Hutto
...(9th Cir. 1975); Chavez v. Rodriguez, 540 F.2d 500, 502 (10th Cir. 1976), and this circuit has done so directly in Rigsbee v. Parkinson, 545 F.2d 56 (8th Cir., 1976), at 57, and earlier sub silentio in Poindexter v. Wolff, 540 F.2d 390, 391 (8th Cir. 1976); Roach v. Parratt, 541 F.2d 772, 7......
-
Maxwell v. Mabry, 81-1900
...issue in a habeas corpus action. 10 Id. at 481-82, 96 S.Ct. at 3046; Stocker v. Hutto, 547 F.2d 437 (8th Cir. 1977); Rigsbee v. Parkinson, 545 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1976). Where a state supreme court has fully reviewed an issue of this nature, we hold that subsequent collateral attack in a habe......