Vanhook v. Craven

• Decision Date: 14 November 1969
• Docket Number: No. 23723.,23723.
• Citation: 419 F.2d 1295
• Parties: Welton VANHOOK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Walter E. CRAVEN, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

419 F.2d 1295 (1969)

Welton VANHOOK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Walter E. CRAVEN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 23723.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

November 14, 1969.

Welton Vanhook, in pro. per.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before BROWNING, ELY, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner-appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging violation of his constitutional rights in proceedings in the California state courts which resulted in his conviction and imprisonment for selling marihuana.

He alleged that he was denied his right to plead not guilty, to confront and cross examine witnesses, and to the effective assistance of trial counsel, because his trial counsel stipulated to the submission of his case on the grand jury transcript, without petitioner's consent and without informing petitioner that such a submission was tantamount to a plea of guilty. The district court declined to consider the merits of this claim on the ground that it had been presented in a previous petition for habeas corpus and rejected by another judge of the district court, in a judgment affirmed by this court on August 5, 1965. Van Hook v. Eklund, 348 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1965).

As petitioner points out, subsequent to this court's affirmance of the district court's rejection of his first petition, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a number of decisions which have a direct and substantial bearing upon the constitutional issues underlying his claim. See Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 86 S. Ct. 1245, 16 L.Ed.2d 314 (1966); Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129, 88 S.Ct. 748, 19 L.Ed.2d 956 (1968); and Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 88 S.Ct. 1318, 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968). In these circumstances, "the ends of justice would be served by permitting the redetermination of the ground" in a new petition. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 16-17, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1078, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963).

Petitioner also alleged that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the appeal of his original conviction in the California courts and was not accorded the right guaranteed by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The district court rejected this contention on the ground that "petitioner admits that counsel filed a brief with the appellate court demonstrating counsel's belief in the lack of merit of petitioner's contentions." This appears to be a reference to petitioner's allegation that counsel "filed a three (3) page no-merit letter in the Appellate Court, and advised the Court that the appeal was without...