Case Title: Application of Acosta

Citation: 400 P.2d 328, 97 Ariz. 333

Docket Number: 1202

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1965-03-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
97 Ariz. 333 (1965) 400 P.2d 328 Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Peter ACOSTA. No. 7872. Supreme Court of Arizona. En Banc. March 25, 1965. *334 Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., Philip M. Haggerty, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Lawrence C. Cantor, Phoenix, for appellant. BERNSTEIN, Justice. Appellant was convicted of the illegal possession of heroin in Maricopa County Superior Court in 1960, and sentenced to from 12 to 20 years in the penitentiary. The first trial ended in the granting of a motion for a mistrial. The conviction here was the result of the second trial. At the second trial the defense efforts were directed toward securing a dismissal of the charges or of a directed verdict. No defense testimony was offered. The defense attorney cross examined the state witnesses and objected to the admission of testimony, but it is clear from reading the record that the defense was directed to make the record for appeal in the event the trial judge disagreed with the legal theories advanced by the defense. The trial attorney for appellant was disbarred after the trial on February 23, 1961. (In re Garcia, 89 Ariz. 155, 359 P.2d 499). No appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction during the 60 day period then allowed for a criminal appeal pursuant to Rule 348, Ariz. Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rule 21(b), Ariz. Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S. The testimony shows it was impossible to locate the attorney during this period and his unavailability is confirmed by the record and findings in the disbarment proceedings, 89 Ariz. at 156, 359 P.2d at 499. During this period appellant as a new prisoner was kept in close confinement. He was permitted, however, to see his mother, and she attempted on many occasions to locate his attorney. Prison regulations would permit appellant to retain a new attorney or to appeal in propria persona, but since he testified he thought he had an attorney he did not attempt to use these procedures. After the time for taking an appeal had expired, and upon written request of appellant, the trial judge, Honorable Henry S. Stevens, on March 17, 1961, made the following order: A motion for delayed appeal was filed in this court and was denied on May 9, 1961. Rule 16(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which now allows for a delayed appeal took effect on April 29, 1964. Appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus in this court, after the denial of delayed appeal but before Rule 16(a) was amended by this court. We directed that a hearing be held in Pinal County Superior Court. At this hearing held on April 19, 1962, appellant's counsel stated: Counsel showed that there are important questions which could be presented on appeal. We need not go into the merits of his grounds for appeal at this time. The writ of habeas corpus was denied, and petitioner has appealed from the judgment denying it. In Dowd v. United States ex rel. Cook, 340 U.S. 206, 71 S. Ct. 262, 95 L. Ed. 215, the United States Supreme Court considered the proper remedy where habeas corpus was sought on the ground of denial of the right to appeal. The court said: The State attempts to distinguish Dowd in its brief because there the failure to file the papers was due to the action of the warden acting under prison rules. Here *336 the refusal to allow an appeal was due to the failure of an attorney to represent his client after having told his client that he was planning to appeal and the client relied thereon. We considered a similar problem in State v. Schroeder, 95 Ariz. 255, 389 P.2d 255, 257, 389 P.2d 255, 257 and said: Fundamental justice requires that in this case the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be treated as a motion for permission to file a delayed appeal under Rule 16(a). The order of this court of May 9, 1961, in Case No. 1202 is vacated, and the appeal is re-instated as a delayed appeal pursuant to Rule 16(a). Affirmed as modified. LOCKWOOD, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and UDALL and McFARLAND, JJ., concur.