United States v. Walker, Civ. No. 3730.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 3730. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. MARTIN v. WALKER, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Petitioner pro se.
In dismissing a previous petition for a writ of habeas corpus by this petitioner, Martin v. Walker, Civil Action No. 3635, this court held that, until he could obtain a final determination of his appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors and a denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, we would not take jurisdiction to consider his petition. Subsequently, on the strength of Jennings v. Illinois, 1951, 342 U.S. 104, 72 S.Ct. 123, 96 L.Ed. 119, we advised him by letter that, if the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors dismissed his appeal for lack of a printed record, and if the inability to supply a printed record was due to the petitioner's poverty, we would consider him as having exhausted his state remedies without seeking certiorari from the United States Supreme Court.
We are now presented with a new petition, alleging substantially the same facts presented in the previous petition but setting forth, in addition, a letter from the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors which states that, for all practical purposes, the petitioner's appeal to that court is dead because of his failure to perfect his appeal within the time allowed. There is no doubt, however, that, had the petitioner been able to muster the necessary funds to pay the cost of printing the record of his trial, he would have been able to pursue his state remedies in the highest state court. We consider this case, then, on the basis of the petitioner's inability to have the Connecticut Superior Court's denial of his habeas corpus petition reviewed by the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors because of the lack of machinery in Connecticut for allowing appeals in civil cases in forma pauperis where the appeal would otherwise be allowed.
With the dismissal of his appeal by the Supreme Court of Errors, the petitioner has availed himself of the limited post-conviction corrective process that Connecticut affords indigent prisoners. We conclude that, in the spirit of Jennings v. Illinois, supra, we may take jurisdiction of this matter at this time. We must consider, therefore, whether the petition sets forth a substantial Federal right which has been denied the petitioner in the state courts. A broad view of the petition suggests three possible theories on which the petitioner may rely. 1 Lack of due process through erroneous construction of the criminal statutes exposing him to double jeopardy; 2 lack of due process through erroneous construction of the criminal statutes failing to give him fair warning of the elements of the crime charged; 3 lack of due process or of equal protection of the laws by failure to provide for appeal in forma pauperis from denial by the Superior Court of a writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner has been tried and convicted on an Information which charged him with wilful burning of a building which was the property of another, which building was not included or described in § 1687c of the 1935 Cumulative Supplement to the General Statutes. As a third offender, he was sentenced to a term of 7 to 30 years in the State's prison. The building in question was a barn on the Osborn Prison Farm, undeniably the property of the State. The trial court ruled that the Information was sufficient to cover the offense, alleged, even though its wording more closely conformed to the so-called private-building arson statute, § 1689c of the 1935 Supplement, rather than to the so-called public arson statute, — § 6070 of the 1930 Revision.
Our first consideration, therefore, should be directed to the statutes' construction by the trial court. Bound as we are by a state court's interpretation of its own statutes, we are not at liberty to upset that construction unless, in some manner, it violates a right which the defendant enjoys under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or other constitutional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Richmond
...119 as allowing prisoners so situated to proceed into the federal court without applying for certiorari. United States ex rel. Martin v. Walker, D.C.D.Conn.1952, 111 F.Supp. 455, affirmed 2 Cir., 1953, 203 F.2d 563. But in the instant case petitioner has received a judgment from a state cou......
-
United States v. Cavell, Misc. No. 2034.
...298, 96 L.Ed. 678, and Ex parte Roberts, D.C.W.D.Va.1945, 61 F.Supp. 864, were cited by relator. See also United States ex rel. Martin v. Walker, D.C.Conn.1952, 111 F.Supp. 455, affirmed 2 Cir., 1953, 203 F.2d 563; Robbins v. Green, 1 Cir., 1954, 218 F.2d 192; Willis v. Utecht, 8 Cir., 1950......
-
United States v. Richmond
......Martin v. Walker, 203 F.2d 563, affirming D.C., 111 F.Supp. 455. However, we find it unnecessary to decide whether ......
-
United States v. Cummings
...required by state law. And we have so held in United States ex rel. Martin v. Walker, 2 Cir., 1953, 203 F.2d 563, affirming D.C.D.Conn.1952, 111 F. Supp. 455. Courts in other circuits have similarly held that if state remedies are not available to an indigent prisoner he may proceed in the ......