Wilwording v. Swenson, Civ. A. No. 18809-3.
Decision Date | 12 November 1970 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 18809-3. |
Citation | 326 F. Supp. 1145 |
Parties | Alan Daniel WILWORDING, Petitioner, v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, Missouri State Penitentiary, Jefferson City, Missouri, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Alan Daniel Wilwording, pro se.
No response required from respondent.
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND JUDGMENT DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner, a state convict confined in the Missouri State Penitentiary, petitions for a writ of federal habeas corpus adjudicating as invalid his state conviction of the offense of first degree robbery. Petitioner also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Petitioner states that after his plea of not guilty, he was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Greene County of the offense of first degree robbery; that he was sentenced on that conviction on June 25, 1964, to a term of imprisonment for twenty years; that he appealed from the judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence to the Missouri Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction and sentence (State v. Wilwording, Mo., 394 S.W.2d 383); that he filed a motion under Missouri Criminal Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., in the state sentencing court, which was overruled on March 11, 1966; that he appealed this overruling to the Missouri Supreme Court, but "withdrew" and dismissed the appeal on October 27, 1966, in order to file a new Rule 27.26 motion; that thereafter petitioner filed a second Rule 27.26 motion in the state sentencing court which was ovveruled on March 18, 1968; that, on appeal from the overruling, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court on March 10, 1969 (Wilwording v. State, Mo., 438 S.W.2d 447); that he subsequently filed a petition for federal habeas corpus in this Court, which was denied on October 6, 1969 (Wilwording v. Swenson (W.D. Mo.) Civil Action No. 17547-3); and that he was represented by counsel at his trial, sentencing and on direct appeal.
Petitioner states the following as grounds for his contention that he is being illegally held:
"Petitioner's imprisonment is illegal and founded upon clearly erroneous state court rulings in contravention with the guarantees embodied in the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as hereinafter shown in supporting facts." (Emphasis petitioner's.)
Petitioner states the following as facts in support of the above grounds:
Insofar as the contentions which petitioner raised in his Rule 27.26 motion in the State courts are concerned, relief in federal habeas corpus must be denied because the identical grounds have previously been considered on their merits by this Court and determined to be without merit as denials of federal rights. Wilwording v. Swenson (W.D. Mo.) Civil Action No. 17547-3. In that case, this Court considered the identical contentions. Petitioner makes no allegation of newly-discovered evidence (which, in any instance, must first be presented to the State courts under the rule of White v. Swenson (W.D.Mo. en banc) 261 F.Supp. 42) nor of other exceptional circumstances which would require this Court not to give conclusive weight on these issues to its findings on petitioner's prior petition involving the same issues. In Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L. Ed.2d 148, it was held that a determination in habeas corpus might be of controlling weight on a subsequent application for habeas corpus if (1) the same ground presented in the subsequent application was determined adversely to the applicant on the prior application, (2) the prior determination was on the merits, and (3) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application. Those three requirements are met in the case at bar with respect to the contentions which petitioner raised in the State courts on his Rule 27.26 motion. All of those contentions do not therefore constitute any basis for relief in federal habeas corpus and the petition at bar must be denied in respect of them.
Petitioner additionally requests that the contentions which he has raised on the direct appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court from his conviction and sentence also be considered by this Court on this petition. Petitioner does not set out the contentions in his petition. Further, they have been withheld by him from prior consideration by this Court on his prior petition. Such a practice violates the policy of this Court against deciding contentions of state prisoners with respect to the invalidity of their state convictions in a piecemeal fashion. See Taggert v. Swenson (W.D.Mo.) 313 F.Supp. 146. It is further to be noted that petitioner did not present the contentions to the State courts on his Rule 27.26 motion. It is conceivable that such might be regarded as the deliberate by-passing of petitioner's state remedies. Taggert v. Swenson, supra. Further, none of the contentions state the denial of any federally protected right of petitioner. As phrased in the official report of the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Wilwording, Mo., 394 S.W.2d 383 ( ) the additional allegations of petitioner which were made on direct appeal are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Wyrick
...in this Court. The denial of petitioner's prior petition should be given controlling weight in this case. See, Wilwording v. Swenson, 326 F.Supp. 1145, 1148 (W.D. Mo.1970), affirmed, 446 F.2d 553 (8th Cir. 1971). "The ability to focus judicial attention upon the pressing and legitimate clai......
-
Wilwording v. Swenson, Civ. A. No. 73CV55-W-3.
...(W.D.Mo.1969), and (3) a petition for federal habeas corpus in this Court which was denied on November 12, 1970, in Wilwording v. Swenson, 326 F.Supp. 1145 (W.D.Mo. 1970), affirmed 446 F.2d 553 (8th Cir. 1971) (also a petition for federal habeas corpus concerning conditions of confinement w......
-
Williams v. Osser
... ... Maurice OSSER et al., Defendants ... Civ. A. No. 71-979 ... United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania ... ...
-
Wilwording v. Wyrick, 18049-4.
...F.2d 844 (8th Cir. 1974); see also Wilwording v. Swenson, Civil Actions Nos. 1490 and 1492 (W.D.Mo.1971); see also Wilwording v. Swenson, 326 F.Supp. 1145 (W. D.Mo.1970); Wilwording v. Swenson, 446 F.2d 553 (8th Cir. On April 30, 1975, pursuant to the mandate of the United States Court of A......