Opinion ID: 353179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grant of Habeas Corpus Relief.

Text: 92 It is unnecessary to recount all of the state and federal proceedings taken on Suggs' behalf after sentencing. They are set forth in the opinions of Judge Duffy 28 and of this court. 29 Suffice it to say that following Suggs' various unsuccessful challenges to his conviction in state appellate and postconviction proceedings, on February 25, 1975, Judge Duffy granted habeas relief without holding a hearing, 390 F.Supp. 383. He found the guilty pleas entered before Justice Nunez on September 13, 1968, void under McCarthy v. United States, supra, and Pate v. Robinson, supra, because entered when Suggs was incompetent. 30 He further determined that the sentencing before Justice Schweitzer was not a valid substitute for the void guilty pleas because the state court did not conduct an inquiry into whether Suggs' previous void plea (or his decision not to withdraw it) was voluntary, as required by Boykin v. Alabama, supra; nor was inquiry made into the factual basis of the pleas, as mandated by United States ex rel. Dunn v. Casscles, supra. 31 The district court also rejected the State's arguments that Suggs' decision not to withdraw his plea at sentencing effected a ratification of the prior invalid pleas or a waiver of his objection to their invalidity. 93