Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-07191/USCOURTS-caDC-00-07191-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis E. Crawford
Appellant
D.C. Board of Parole
Appellee
Department of Corrections
Appellee
A. J. Kramer
Appointed Amicus Curiae for Appellant
Warden
Appellee

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 4, 2001 Decided January 25, 2002

No. 00-7022

Charles E. Wiggins,

Appellant

v.

John Henderson, Warden, D.C. Department of Corrections,

Occoquan Facility,

Appellee

Consolidated with

00-7191

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 94cv02609)

(No. 99cv01051)

---------

USCA Case #00-7191 Document #653382 Filed: 01/25/2002 Page 1 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

A. J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender, appointed by the

court, argued the cause and filed the briefs as amicus curiae

for appellants.

Charles E. Wiggins, appearing pro se, was on the brief for

appellant Charles E. Wiggins in No. 00-7022.

Curtis E. Crawford, appearing pro se, was on the briefs for

appellant Curtis E. Crawford in No. 00-7191.

Mary L. Wilson, Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued

the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Robert R.

Rigsby, Corporation Counsel, and Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corporation Counsel.

Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, Edwards and Sentelle,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Sentelle.

Sentelle, Circuit Judge: In this case we affirm the decisions of the district court to dismiss the separate petitions for

writs of habeas corpus filed by Charles E. Wiggins and Curtis

E. Crawford pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 2253. The reasons for

our decisions follow.

The issues presented are principally procedural, and require a brief review of earlier proceedings. In 1972, the

United States charged Charles E. Wiggins with first degree

murder in violation of the District of Columbia Code. At that

time, the current District of Columbia Superior Court did

exist, but jurisdiction of homicides under the District of

Columbia Code remained in the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia. District of Columbia Court

Reorganization Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-358, title I,

ss 111, 199(c), 84 Stat. 473, 477, 482, 486, 598 (codified in part

at D.C. Code ss 11-502(2)(A)(v), 11-901, 11-923(b)(2)). Wiggins was convicted in the district court, but we set aside the

conviction for the prejudicial trial use of an alleged confession

to other murders. United States v. Wiggins, 509 F.2d 454

(D.C. Cir. 1975). We also set aside a second conviction.

Following the third trial, we affirmed conviction. See Wiggins v. Henderson, No. 94-2609, slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. Nov. 22,

USCA Case #00-7191 Document #653382 Filed: 01/25/2002 Page 2 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1999). Wiggins is currently serving a sentence of twenty

years to life in prison for his conviction of murder.

Wiggins has previously been considered for parole, but

denied it in whole or in part because of the alleged confession

of other murders. He previously sought relief from the district court on this ground in 1994 pro se. The district court

considered and denied the writ; we affirmed summarily.

Wiggins v. Henderson, No. 95-7097 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 1996)

(per curiam). After he was denied parole a second time

because of his alleged confession to other murders, he made a

second pro se petition to the district court on September 8,

1999 seeking either immediate release on parole or, alternatively, a parole reconsideration hearing at which the confession to other murders could not be considered. The district

court dismissed this second petition because it raised only the

issues previously addressed by the district court in 1995 and

by this court in 1996. Wiggins appealed, and we now have

that second petition before us. We appointed amicus to

present arguments on behalf of Wiggins.

Like Wiggins, Curtis E. Crawford was convicted in federal

district court for a D.C. Code offense. Unlike Wiggins,

Crawford was paroled. He was later arrested in the District

for aggravated assault under the D.C. Code. The United

States Attorney notified the parole board of the new arrest,

and the parole board issued a parole violation warrant based

on allegations of new criminal conduct (the assault charges).

When the D.C. Superior Court authorized Crawford's release

on the assault charges, the authorities promptly executed the

parole warrant and continued to hold him for the alleged

parole violation.

Ordinarily, revocation of parole requires a reasonably

prompt hearing after the parolee has been deprived of his

conditional liberty, see generally Morrissey v. Brewer, 408

U.S. 471, 485-89 (1972), but Crawford was given none.

When, more than two months after execution of the parole

warrant, authorities still held Crawford but had not afforded

him a parole revocation hearing, Crawford petitioned for a

writ of habeas corpus. The district court issued a show cause

USCA Case #00-7191 Document #653382 Filed: 01/25/2002 Page 3 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

order. Whether or not awakened by this show cause order,

the District at last conducted a parole revocation hearing for

Crawford. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it had been rendered moot by that

intervening parole revocation hearing. Nevertheless, Crawford appealed. As with Wiggins, we appointed amicus to

present arguments on behalf of Crawford.

These petitions present a procedural question of first impression. Section 2253 confers jurisdiction on this court to

hear appeals from final orders in habeas proceedings conducted by the district court, but requires a certificate of appealability ("COA") when "the detention complained of arises out

of process issued by a State court." 28 U.S.C. s 2253(a), (c).

The certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."

Id. s 2253(c)(2). The requirement supplants the former and

similar requirement of a certificate of probable cause. See

Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 723-24 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (per

curiam). Neither Wiggins nor Crawford has requested or

received such a COA.

Corporation counsel for the District of Columbia, appearing

in opposition to the respective appeals of Wiggins and Crawford, argues that the convicting district court effectively sat

as a state court for the District when it applied District law,

and therefore that Wiggins and Crawford each must obtain a

COA. The statute refers to "process issued by a State

court." It says nothing about the process of a federal court

acting to implement state law. The starting point in understanding the statute is always the language of the legislature.

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 431 (2000). We know of no

instance in which Congress has ever indicated its intention

that a federal court should become a state court for this or

any other purpose. If Congress were intending to do something so extraordinary, we would expect it to do so explicitly.

We therefore conclude that the federal district court is not

rendered a state court for purposes of this statute by its

application of District of Columbia law. Corporation counsel

also argues that a COA is required because Wiggins and

Crawford challenge decisions of the D.C. Board of Parole and

USCA Case #00-7191 Document #653382 Filed: 01/25/2002 Page 4 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

therefore their detentions arise out of "process issued by a

State court." We reject that argument, however, for the

reasons given in a related case. See Madley v. United States

Parole Comm'n, No. 00-5226 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2002). Accordingly, the statute does not require or permit us to require

a COA from Wiggins or Crawford.

Since no COA is required, we now reach the merits of the

respective petitions, but we discover that there are none.

The contentions of Wiggins have been considered fully previously, and he raises no new matter. He is detained pursuant

to a judgment of a court of the United States. The district

court did not err in dismissing his petition. 28 U.S.C. s 2244.

The contention of Crawford that he was denied a revocation

hearing has been cured. Crawford v. Director of Dep't of

Corr., No. 99-1051 (D.D.C. June 26, 2000).

USCA Case #00-7191 Document #653382 Filed: 01/25/2002 Page 5 of 5