Spaulding v. Taylor, 7576.
| Decision Date | 01 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 7576.,7576. |
| Citation | 336 F.2d 192 |
| Parties | Travis O. SPAULDING, Appellant, v. J. C. TAYLOR, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Sheldon F. Goldberg, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Benjamin E. Franklin, Kansas City, Kan., for appellee.
Before BREITENSTEIN, HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Spaulding appeals from the trial court's denial of habeas corpus. He was convicted of a local crime in a territorial court of Alaska; and on appeal his conviction was affirmed.1 He is now confined in Leavenworth penitentiary in Kansas.
The first question is whether he may have habeas corpus relief. The government urges that the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is exclusive.
Spaulding was sentenced on April 15, 1955. Alaska became a state on January 3, 1959.2 The law admitting Alaska to statehood provides in its § 153 that cases which were pending or determined in the territorial courts at the time of admission and which were within federal jurisdiction shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska and that all other causes shall be transferred to an appropriate state court. The offense of which Spaulding was convicted was not within federal jurisdiction.
The record shows that after statehood Spaulding petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Alaska for relief under § 2255 and it was denied on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction. Spaulding then petitioned the appropriate Superior Court of the State of Alaska which held that it was without jurisdiction. He then went to the Supreme Court of Alaska which also denied jurisdiction. In the circumstances we believe that the United States District Court for the District of Kansas correctly held that the § 2255 remedy was ineffective and that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for habeas corpus.
On the merits the trial court held that every issue raised by the petition had been determined adversely to Spaulding on the direct appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.4 We agree. A petition for habeas corpus, like a motion under § 2255, may not be used as a substitute for an appeal;5 and matters raised and disposed of in a direct appeal from a conviction will not be reviewed again in a collateral attack proceeding.6 By the instant application Spaulding is seeking a review of the decision of the Ninth Circuit.
Appointed counsel present a petition for a writ of Coram Vobis directing the Alaska courts to take jurisdiction of Spaulding's applications for relief. We have no power to order the United States District Court for the District of Alaska or any Alaska state court to take such jurisdiction. We are informally advised that the Alaska state courts will now take jurisdiction over post-conviction applications for relief from territorial court convictions of local offenses.
The application for a writ of Coram Vobis is denied. The judgment is affirmed.
1 Spaulding v. United States, 9 Cir., 279 F.2d 65, certiorari denied 364 U.S. 887, 81 S.Ct. 177, 5 L.Ed.2d 107.
3 Act of July 7, 1958, Pub.L. 85-508, 72 Stat. 339, 349. The pertinent language is: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Barrett
...circuits, which found a remedy under § 2255 to be inadequate or ineffective only on rare occasions. Compare, e.g., Spaulding v. Taylor, 336 F.2d 192, 193 (10th Cir.1964) (finding § 2255 ineffective where original sentencing court was abolished), and Cohen v. United States, 593 F.2d 766, 771......
-
Prost v. Anderson
...the defendant's sentencing court had been abolished by the time the prisoner sought to bring his initial collateral attack. 336 F.2d 192 (10th Cir.1964). Because the defendant's § 2255 motion had to be brought in the (now nonexistent) sentencing court, that remedial mechanism was necessaril......
-
McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc.
...crimes, a motion to vacate may be "inadequate or ineffective" within the meaning of the "saving clause." See, e.g. , Spaulding v. Taylor , 336 F.2d 192, 193 (10th Cir. 1964) (federal district court in Alaska, following admission to statehood, refused to consider motion to vacate, thereby al......
-
State ex rel. Leighton v. Henderson
...and disposed of in a direct appeal from a conviction. State ex rel. Brown v. Newell, 216 Tenn. 284, 391 S.W.2d 667; Spaulding v. Taylor, 336 F.2d 192 (10th Cir. 1964). This follows inevitably as a necessary corollary of the deeply rooted and established principle that habeas corpus is not a......
-
ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE: POSTCONVICTION RELIEF THROUGH SECTION 2255 AND INTERVENING CHANGES IN LAW.
...886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). (90) 28 U.S.C. [section] 2255(e). (91) Prost, 636 F.3d at 585. (92) See, e.g., Spaulding v. Taylor, 336 F.2d 192 (10th Cir. 1964) (permitting a [section] 2241 motion because the sentencing court to which a [section] 2255 motion had to be directed had been ......