Torrance v. Henry
| Citation | 304 F. Supp. 725 |
| Decision Date | 15 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 2389. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | William F. TORRANCE, Petitioner, v. David P. HENRY, Administrator, State of North Carolina, Respondents. |
William F. Torrance, pro se.
Robert Morgan, Atty. Gen. of North Carolina, and Jacob L. Safron, Staff Atty., Raleigh, N. C., for respondents.
Petitioner, a state prisoner, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. He was convicted at the August 1, 1967, Session of the Sampson County Recorder's Court upon warrants charging him with driving while his license was permanently revoked and resisting arrest, and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. Petitioner appealed to the Superior Court of Sampson County and was tried de novo. In November 1967 the Superior Court sentenced him to consecutive terms of imprisonment of one to two years and 18 months to two years upon guilty pleas to driving while his license was revoked and to resisting arrest respectively. He has also been convicted and sentenced twice for escape, but the validity of those convictions is not in question here.
Petitioner as grounds for relief alleges:
(1) That he had no counsel at the original proceedings in the Sampson County Recorder's Court;
(2) That the Superior Court divided the charges that the Recorder's Court had consolidated for trial; and
(3) That the Superior Court imposed harsher sentences upon his appeal from the Recorder's Court.
As to the first ground for relief, petitioner admits in his petition that he privately retained counsel for his trial de novo in the Superior Court. He does not allege that he was not advised of his right to counsel or in any way prevented from retaining counsel for his trial in the Recorder's Court. The court is of the opinion that no prejudice has resulted from lack of counsel in the Recorder's Court since petitioner had counsel at a trial de novo.
The court is of the opinion that the second ground is frivolous and without merit because no federal question is presented.
As to the third ground, the respondent admits that the sentences imposed in the Superior Court are harsher than the 12-month sentence for the combined convictions in the Recorder's Court. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656, decided June 23, 1969, holds that a harsher sentence at a new trial may be constitutionally imposed only if evidence of events subsequent to the first trial is presented which would justify an increase and the judge affirmatively bases the new sentence upon this evidence as a matter of record. In the present case the respondent has failed to show...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Payne
...penalty. See, E.g., Barnes v. United States (1969), 136 U.S.App.D.C. 171, 419 F.2d 753 (dissenting opinion); Torrance v. Henry (U.S.D.C.E.D.N.C., 1969), 304 F.Supp. 725; Pinkard v. Neil (U.S.D.C. M.D.Tenn., 1970), 311 F.Supp. 711; Walsh v. Commonwealth (Mass., 1970), 260 N.E.2d 911 (dictum ......
-
State v. Nash
...Rivera v. Rose, 465 F.2d 727 (6th Cir. 1972), judgment vacated, 412 U.S. 935, 93 S.Ct. 2769, 37 L.Ed.2d 395 (1973); Torrance v. Henry, 304 F.Supp. 725 (E.D.N.C.1969); Pinkard v. Neil, 311 F.Supp. 711 (M.D.Tenn.1970); Commonwealth v. Allen, 443 Pa. 96, 277 A.2d 803 (Sup.Ct.1971). Holding Pea......
-
U.S. v. Tucker, 77-1789
...407 (1974); Midgett v. McClelland, 422 F.Supp. 82 (D.C.Md.1975); Pinkard v. Neil, 311 F.Supp. 711 (M.D.Tenn.1970); and Torrance v. Henry, 304 F.Supp. 725 (E.D.N.C.1969).7 See also North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 741, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1968) (Black, Jr., dissenting); Cha......
-
James v. Copinger
...(6th Cir. 1969); United States v. Wood, 413 F.2d 437 (5th Cir. 1969); Pinkard v. Neil, 311 F.Supp. 711 (M.D.Tenn.1970); Torrance v. Henry, 304 F.Supp. 725 (E.D.N.C.1969). We are in accord. But it is not that aspect of the question that is before us. We are asked to apply Pearce retroactivel......