Opinion ID: 433619
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reinstatement of the Appeal

Text: 10 The Attorney General has not contended in this appeal that Gardner's second petition was denied for failure to demonstrate errors that might arguably result in a reversal. We therefore are not presented with the question of whether denial of reinstatement on such grounds would violate due process. See Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, 330, 89 S.Ct. 1715, 1717, 23 L.Ed.2d 340 (1969), and Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 54, 60 (9th Cir.1980), holding that where the appeal right is lost because of the attorney's derilection, reinstatement of an appeal may not be conditioned on a showing that the appeal arguably has merit. 11 The Attorney General contended in his brief that the state court denied Gardner's second petition because of the conflict between the reason for delay Gardner advanced in his first and second petitions. The Attorney General argued that the conflict demonstrated misconduct by Gardner, in that he made deliberate false statements in order to defraud the state court, justifying denial of the petitions. 12 At oral argument, however, the Attorney General conceded that both applications for reinstatement indicated that until May 1980 Hyatt continued to lull Gardner into believing that he was working on the appeal, and that Gardner should not worry about the matter. The Attorney General further conceded that Hyatt's continuing deceptions justify reinstatement of Gardner's appeal. He offered to stipulate that this court should grant the writ but delay issuance to allow the State to reinstate the appeal. 13 The court appreciates the forthrightness of the Attorney General's concessions, but we do not believe that further delay in issuance of the writ is appropriate. Gardner's attorneys sought reinstatement of the appeal three times in the state appellate court and twice in the state supreme court. Each request was denied. Subsequently, the district court afforded the state appellate court another opportunity for the same voluntary reinstatement the Attorney General now requests of this court. See, e.g., Boles v. Stevenson, 379 U.S. 43, 45-46, 85 S.Ct. 174, 175-176, 13 L.Ed.2d 109 (1964); Hart v. Eyman, 458 F.2d 334, 338 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 407 U.S. 916, 92 S.Ct. 2441, 32 L.Ed.2d 691 (1972). Again, the California Court of Appeal took no action to reinstate the appeal. 14 We are mindful of the considerations of comity underlying the habeas writ, which require that state courts be given an opportunity to correct alleged violations before federal courts step in. See, e.g., Hudson v. Rushen, 686 F.2d 826, 829-30 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1896, 77 L.Ed.2d 285 (1983). At the same time, comity does not require that a petitioner file repititious or futile petitions in state court. Powell v. Wyrick, 657 F.2d 222, 223-24 (8th Cir.1981); Rodgers v. Wyrick, 621 F.2d 921, 924 (8th Cir.1980). Cf. Matias v. Oshiro, 683 F.2d 318, 320 (9th Cir.1982) (petitioner need not seek speculative or conjectural state remedy that appears to be barred by state procedural rule); Sweet v. Cupp, 640 F.2d 233, 236 (9th Cir.1981) (petitioner may be excused from exhaustion requirement if highest state court recently decided issue adversely and no intervening decisions indicate it intends to depart from its ruling). The district court allowed the state courts sufficient opportunity to reinstate Gardner's appeal before issuing the writ. We do not believe that Gardner should be required to seek reinstatement of his appeal yet another time.