Smith v. Digmon
| Decision Date | 16 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-6799,76-6799 |
| Citation | 98 S.Ct. 597,54 L.Ed.2d 582,434 U.S. 332 |
| Parties | Gary David SMITH v. James F. DIGMON, Warden, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama from his sentence following a judgment of conviction for rape in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Ala. Among the allegations of constitutional error in his trial—presented to the District Court in petitioner's traverse to the State's response to his petition petitioner claimed that the in-court identification of him by the prosecuting witness was the product of an out-of-court identification at an impermissibly suggestive photographic array and a later uncounseled lineup. The District Court refused to entertain this claim on the ground, recited in its opinion, that "this issue has never been presented to any state court." No. 77-A-0029-E (mem. filed Feb. 11, 1977). This conclusion was premised upon the absence of any reference to the contention in the reported opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the conviction. Smith v. State, 57 Ala.App. 164, 326 So.2d 692 (1975). The District Court stated: "It is inconceivable to this Court that had Smith raised that issue [in the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals] that [that court] would not have written to it." The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied petitioner's pro se application for a certificate of probable cause and for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. No. 77-8141 (Apr. 20, 1977).
In his pro se petition for certiorari, petitioner asserted that "[i]t is beyond doubt that State remedies have been exhausted." Pet. for Cert. 3. This Court direc ed the filing here of the briefs submitted to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner's brief to that court reveals that petitioner, citing decisions of this Court,1 did indeed submit the constitutional contention that the prosecuting witness' in-court identification should have been excluded from evidence because that identification derived from an impermissibly suggestive pretrial photographic array and a later uncounseled lineup; moreover, the State Attorney General's brief devoted two of its seven pages to argument answering the contention.2
It is too obvious to merit extended discussion that whether the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) has been satisfied cannot turn upon whether a state appellate court chooses to ignore in its opinion a federal constitutional claim squarely raised in petitioner's brief in the state court, and, indeed, in this case, vigorously opposed in the State's brief. It is equally obvious that a district court commits plain error in assuming that a habeas petitioner must have failed to raise in the state courts a meritorious claim that he is incarcerated in violation of the Constitution if the state appellate court's opinion contains no reference to the claim.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and the petition for certiorari are granted. The order of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the District Court are reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pruett v. Thompson
...see this makes its procedural default ruling as to this claim clearly erroneous and without merit. See Smith v. Digmon, 434 U.S. 332, 98 S.Ct. 597, 54 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978) (per curiam) (claim not unexhausted merely because state appellate court ignores federal constitutional claim squarely ad......
-
Hines v. Carpenter
...at 735 (citation omitted). A state court's actual ruling ona presented claim is not required for federal habeas review. Smith v. Digmon, 434 U.S. 332, 333-34 (1978). Moreover, a petitioner is not required to present to the state court every specific fact in support of his federal claim, and......
-
Biller v. Lopes
...address it. See Response to Petition at 7-8. Therefore, the Court can properly decide this issue on the merits. Smith v. Digmon, 434 U.S. 332, 98 S.Ct. 597, 54 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978). Case law suggests that the threatened derivative use of coerced testimony which results in a defendant not test......
-
Sands v. Cunningham
...issue be addressed in a decision where the substance of the claim has been fairly presented to the state court. Smith v. Digmon, 434 U.S. 332, 98 S.Ct. 597, 54 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978); Williams v. Holbrook, 691 F.2d 3 (1st Turning to the merits of this claim, petitioner argues that the prosecuti......
-
Review Proceedings
...presented before the state court and directed state court of appeals to address the claim on remand. Id. ; see also Smith v. Digmon, 434 U.S. 332, 333-34 (1978) (per curiam) (exhaustion requirement satisfied despite state appellate court’s failure to address claim of uncounseled lineup and......
-
Protecting first federal habeas corpus petitions: closing the opening left by Gomez.
...N.Y. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (1979); Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 (1978); Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978); Smith v. Digmon, 434 U.S. 332 (1978); Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257 (1978); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977); Blackledge v. Alli......