Stokes v. Peyton
| Decision Date | 25 April 1966 |
| Citation | 147 S.E.2d 773,207 Va. 1 |
| Parties | Rufus STOKES v. C. C. PEYTON, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
C. Willard Norwood, Richmond, for plaintiff in error.
Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.
Before EGGLESTON, C.J., and SPRATLEY, BUCHANAN, SNEAD, I'ANSON, CARRICO and GORDON, JJ.
This is an appeal by Rufus Stokes from an order of the Hustings Court of the City of Richmond entered on September 3, 1964, denying and dismissing his petition for a writ of Habeas corpus, by which he sought release from a sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him by the same court (Huntley, J.) on October 24, 1963 for murder.
The only substantial questions presented are: (1) whether Stokes had the effective assistance of counsel when he was tried for murder; and (2) whether he was thereafter denied his right to appeal.
From the evidence, court records and exhibits, the following appears:
Stokes was indicted by a grand jury of the Hustings Court of Richmond on August 19, 1963, for the murder of Earl Prince. He employed Thomas C. Crouch, Jr., a member of the bar of the City of Richmond, to defend him. A trial was held on September 20, 1963. After being arraigned, Stokes pleaded not guilty, after advice of counsel. Thereupon, with the consent of the accused, given in person, on advice of counsel, and the concurrence of the court and the Attorney for the Commonwealth, the court proceeded to hear the case without a jury. After hearing the evidence and argument of counsel, Stokes was found guilty of murder in the first degree, and the case postponed to obtain a pre-sentence investigation and report from the Probation Department. That investigation was made, a report filed, and on October 24, 1963, Stokes was sentenced for the term of his natural life.
At the hearing in this Habeas corpus proceeding, it was shown that Stokes is an indigent with little education. He had never completed the fourth grade in the public school system, and was employed as a trash collector by the City of Richmond.
Crouch testified that on September 19, 1963, at the request of a niece of Stokes, he went to the Richmond city jail and conferred with Stokes about thirty minutes to an hour. In payment of counsel fees, Stokes assigned his funds in a credit union to Crouch. Stokes told Crouch that Earl Prince had provoked him into a fight; that he stabbed Prince in self-defense; and that there were three other persons present at the time. He gave the names of Rosetta Monroe and Cecelia Prince and their address, and the name of Irene Bostick, address unknown. Crouch promptly went to the home of the two persons first named, Rosetta Monroe and her daughter, Cecelia Prince, the latter being also the daughter of Earl Prince. The witnesses lived at the house where the killing occurred, where Prince also stayed. The house was frequently visited also by Stokes, calling upon Rosetta Monroe, with whom he apparently had an improper relationship. Rosetta and Cecelia told Crouch that Stokes had, without any provocation whatever, stabbed and killed Prince in cold blood, and that they were going to appear as witnesses for the Commonwealth. Taking notice of their attitude towards Stokes, Crouch warned them to be sure of the facts to which they testified, because of the seriousness of the charge against Stokes. Crouch then endeavored to locate Irene Bostick; but was unable to find her. Inasmuch as Stokes had told him that Irene's only knowledge of the case was the fact that she heard Prince call Stokes into the house, and that she knew nothing of the killing, Crouch returned to the jail, told Stokes that the outlook for him was not bright, and the reasons why he had reched that conclusion.
At the trial, Crouch cross-examined the Commonweath's witnesses in detail, and from such admissions as he gained from them in favor of Stokes, and the testimony of Stokes that he acted in self-defense, argued in favor of his client.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court dismissed the petition for the writ of Habeas corpus, and in the order made the following statement: 'Petitioner was ably, competently and effectively represented by Thomas C. Crouch, Jr., an attorney of his own choosing; that said attorney thoroughly investigated the case, interviewed all witnesses, who had any connection with the same, and was adequately prepared for trial; * * * that there was no basis for an appeal of said judgment; that petitioner has failed to bear the burden in showing that he is illegally detained; and that petitioner was not denied any of his constitutional rights in connection with the aforesaid trial (October 24, 1963).'
Shortly after his conviction, Stokes asked his niece to see Crouch, and tell the latter that he would like to appeal his conviction. In response, Crouch, on November 20, 1963, wrote Stokes that he had given 'a great deal of thought' to the case during the time between the trial and the day of his sentencing; that he had several conferences with the judge, the Commonwealth's Attorney, and the Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney and each had refused to recommend a sentence less than that imposed. Further, Crouch said in the letter:
Frustrated in his efforts to get Crouch to perfect an appeal, Stokes undertook to prepare one himself. On December 19, 1963, he filed, in the Clerk's Office of the Hustings Court, an affidavit dated December 12, 1963, alleging that he was 'without funds and unable to employ counsel to prosecute his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shiflett v. Commonwealth of Virginia
...ill served by such a result. 12 E. g., Connors v. Peyton, 4 Cir., mem. dec., No. 12,157, December 18, 1968. 13 See e. g., Stokes v. Peyton, 207 Va. 1, 147 S.E.2d 773; Cabaniss v. Cunningham, 206 Va. 330, 143 S.E.2d 911. 14 In two of the cases there was no way the court could have known of t......
-
Coleman v. Thompson
...constitutional right to counsel on appeal. See also Thacker v. Peyton, 206 Va. 771, 146 S.E.2d 176 (1966) (same); Stokes v. Peyton, 207 Va. 1, 147 S.E.2d 773 (1966) (same). Such a rule would be of no help to Coleman. He does not contend that the failure of the Virginia Supreme Court to hear......
-
Wise v. Williams
...Mobil Oil Co., 207 Va. 707, 152 S.E.2d 278 (1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 825, 88 S.Ct. 65, 19 L.Ed.2d 80 (1967); Stokes v. Peyton, 207 Va. 1, 147 S.E.2d 773 (1966); Thacker v. Peyton, 206 Va. 771, 146 S.E.2d 176 (1966); Cabaniss v. Cunningham, 206 Va. 330, 143 S.E.2d 911 (1965)). The Supre......
-
Bryant v. Peyton
... ... Magee v. Peyton, 343 F.2d 433 (4th Cir. 1965); Puckett v. State of North Carolina, 343 F.2d 452 (4th Cir. 1965); Clark v. Peyton, 207 Va. 444, 150 S.E.2d 533 (1966); Russell v. Peyton, 207 Va. 469, 150 S.E. 2d 530 (1966); Stokes v. Peyton, 207 Va. 1, 147 S.E.2d 773 (1966); Thacker v. Peyton, 206 Va. 771, 146 S.E.2d 176 (1966); Cabaniss v. Cunningham, 206 Va. 330, 143 S.E.2d 911 (1965) ... Though respondent concedes that the foregoing cases probably dictate at least the granting of a belated appeal with ... ...