Document: 409 U.S. 41 93 S.Ct. 71 34 L.Ed.2d 194 Frank F. MURCH et al.v.Robert H. MOTTRAM. No. 72 - 55. Nov. 6, 1972. Leave to File Petition for Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1973. See 1119, 894. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent Mottram sought habeas corpus from the United States District Court in Maine, challenging on various constitutional grounds validity of a criminal conviction obtained Maine state courts. After full evidentiary hearing, denied relief, both ground that respondent had deliberately bypassed procedures established post-conviction adjudication such claims, and claims were without merit. 330 F.Supp. 51 (1971). The Appeals First Circuit reversed, holding not waived his right raise issues, ruling favor one issue. 458 F.2d 626 (1972). We have concluded that, under settled principles governing availability federal prisoners, finding as waiver must be sustained. therefore grant motion leave proceed forma pauperis, petition writ certiorari, reverse judgment Appeals. 2 was convicted 1960 larceny being habitual offender, these convictions upheld appeal. State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325, 184 A.2d 225 (1962). On appeal, did litigate issue upon which based its decision. paroled 1963, but parole revoked 1965. Following revocation, brought court action later became main focus concern Court. original proceeding challenged directly underlying convictions. Prior presentation evidence judge, however, Mottram's counsel withdraw prejudice substitute 'Supplemental Petition,' only propriety attending revocation respondent's parole. At this point judge advised he considered therefore, applicable statutes, Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., Tit. 14, §§ 5502, 5507 (1964) would either all relief custody or deemed waive those been asserted. disagreed with contending common-law corpus, statutory requirement attack presented apply. reiterated interpretation, following colloquy then took place: 3 'THE COURT: I think will ask you deal at moment making decision what want do basis undoubtedly view it your remedy might an appeal my fairness, should indicate is it. result we are led by statute, myself. 4 'MR. TEVANIAN (Mottram's counsel): understand position shall discuss it.' 5 (Conference between Mr. Tevanian Mottram.) (Off-record discussion.) 6 (RECESS) 7 TEVANIAN: For record, our here 1960. now attacking personal freedom violator so whatever rights may reserve whether like avail ourselves reservation. elected go ahead 8 makes clear, Brother Tevanian, record . ..' 9 unsuccessful before latter's sustained Supreme Judicial Maine. State, 232 809 (1967). In 1967, filed another collaterally included ultimately held failure present 1965 petition, after explicit warning trail constituted provisions statutes precluded raising subsequent relief. 263 715 (1970). than commenced litigation 10 Fay Noia, 372 391, 439, 83 822, 849, 837 (1963), said: 11 'If applicant, consultation competent otherwise, understandingly knowingly forewent privilege seeking vindicate courts, strategic, tactical, any other reasons can fairly described deliberate by-passing procedures, open deny him if courts refused entertain merits though course has satisfied itself, hearing some means, facts bearing applicant's default.' 12 devoted four days transcripts trials postconviction proceedings, well testimony witnesses called introduced evidence. follows: 13 'From Court's observation petitioner, apparent least average intelligence deserves reputation cunning 'jailhouse lawyer.' He represented time unquestioned competence integrity. It inconceivable fully explain petitioner possible consequences action. Court, finds aware bypassing orderly provided statute issues most recent forfeited so. (Citing cases.)' F.Supp., 57. 14 Sanders States, 373 1, 18, 1068, 1078, 148 said, speaking prisoners: 15 'Thus, example, prisoner withholds two collateral filing first application, hope granted hearings rather reason, second application presenting withheld ground. Nothing traditions requires tolerate needless piecemeal litigation, proceedings whose purpose vex, harass, delay.' 16 There no doubt likewise provide, done, assert known single proceeding. Indeed, agreed scheme 'orderly procedure courts,' term used supra, 438, 849. No Federal Constitution 28 U.S.C. § 2241 insist presumptively valid face provision. 17 conceded '(t)here great many instances where party bound mistake counsel.' F.2d, 629. But because question trial required attacks detention, shut, counsel's claim could regarded 'deliberate by-pass' 438—439, 848—849. That also relied fact there 'extrinsic evidence' 'was circumvent 18 Concededly, testified intend subjective determination abandon sufficient preclude bypass constitutionally procedural requirements, contained requiring joining bases proceeding, utterly meaningless. previous holdings area supports conclusion having fair effect cavalierly disregard intended simply announcing choose sensitive ofttimes strained federal-state relations, 'elect' comply interpretation court, intent claims. apparently felt long highest construed relevant free adhere own establish thereby ignore procedure. here, reasonable risk ran declining nonetheless chose run risk. Such conduct supported chosen erred upsetting determination. 19 Reversed. 20 Justice BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL concur, dissenting. 21 dissent affirm reached correct presented.

Category: 0