Rodriguez v. Nelson, 68-1005.
| Decision Date | 12 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 68-1005.,68-1005. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Manuel Domingo RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Louis S. NELSON, Warden, etc., Respondent. |
Manuel Domingo Rodriguez, in pro. per.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phillip G. Samovar, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
The petitioner, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The petitioner was arrested in August 1966, and charged with the violation of Section 11501 of the California Health and Safety Code (sale of narcotics). On August 9, 1966, the petitioner appeared before the Los Angeles Municipal Court for a preliminary hearing on the alleged violation. The petitioner was represented by counsel who cross-examined the single witness called by the prosecution. The petitioner subsequently was tried and convicted by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County solely on the basis of the transcript of the preliminary hearing.
On August 24, 1967, the petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal, but the appeal subsequently was dismissed under Rule 17(a) of the California Rules on Appeal because the petitioner failed to file an opening appellate brief. In November 1967, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Marin County, raising the same issues as those presented here. On January 12, 1968, the Superior Court denied the petitioner's request for appointed counsel and on January 26, 1968, the court denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus without a written opinion setting forth the reasons for denial. The petition for writ of habeas corpus subsequently was denied by the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court.
The petitioner now seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the alleged grounds that:
1. His constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was violated because his counsel stipulated at trial that the matter be heard on the transcript of the preliminary hearing.
2. His constitutional right to counsel was violated because he was denied the assistance of counsel in his state court habeas corpus proceedings.
3. His constitutional right to due process was violated because the Superior Court of Marin County denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus without filing any written opinion stating the reasons for the denial of the petition.
4. His constitutional right to utilize the appeal procedure provided by the State of California was violated because the petitioner never was notified that his appeal had been accepted for review.
Ordinarily, this court would conclude that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is not properly filed because it does not appear "that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The fourth ground for relief urged above does not preclude the petitioner from seeking permission from the California courts to file a late notice of appeal under the California Rules of Court, Rule 31 (a), and thus remedying his failure to file an opening brief on appeal. See Lembke v. Field, 380 F.2d 383, 384 (9th Cir. 1967). However, the petitioner already has exhausted his state habeas corpus remedies, and his failure to perfect his appeal does not appear to have been a deliberate by-passing of the state courts. Furthermore, this court concludes that the present petition is frivolous and does not present any valid grounds for relief, and that the petition can be disposed of on its merits in the interests of justice and without harm to the principle of federal-state comity. See United States ex rel. Bostic v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 262 F.Supp. 428, 429 (E.D.Pa.1967).
As to the first ground for relief urged above, the Sixth Amendment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
USA ex rel. Sabella v. Follette, 69 Civ. 5047.
...707, 715-716 (2d Cir. 1960); cf., also United States ex rel. Marshall v. Wilkins, 338 F.2d 404, 406 (2d Cir. 1964); Rodriguez v. Nelson, 286 F.Supp. 321, 323 (C.D.Cal.1968). 24 United States ex rel. Colon v. McMann, 270 F.Supp. 77, 79 25 Cf. United States v. Wight, 176 F.2d 376, 379 (2d Cir......
-
Wilcox v. United States, N-75-112
...against him at trial by agreeing to the use at trial of a transcript of testimony taken at pre-trial hearings, Rodriguez v. Nelson, 286 F.Supp. 321 (C.D.Cal.1968); he may also waive the right to grand and petit juries selected without regard to race, Aaron v. Capps, 507 F.2d 685 (5th Cir. 1......
-
Mason v. United States
...the witness's body is available. This was stated in the cases referred to by the trial court, cited above, and also in Rodriguez v. Nelson, D.C., 286 F.Supp. 321. The record here shows that the trial judge did all that was reasonable and proper to have the witnesses testify. See Pleau v. St......
-
Wanner v. Satran, A1-86-011.
...v. Paderick, 382 F.Supp. 253 (D.Va.1974); United States ex rel. Crawford v. Anderson, 303 F.Supp. 577 (D.Del.1969); Rodriguez v. Nelson, 286 F.Supp. 321 (D.Cal.1968); United States ex rel. Bostic v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 262 F.Supp. 428 Claims Removal of Prisoner to State Hospital U......