Court Opinion

ID: 9461750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:23:47.075923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:14.772804
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
I concur in the result in Singleton’s case, No. 73 — 2305.
I respectfully dissent to the vacation of the order in Stepheney’s case, No. 73— 1829, and to remanding that case for further proceedings.
In Stepheney, the district court, after correctly discussing the principles of law involved, and citing Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) and United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), then stated in its order as follows:
“The initial petition before this Court simply asserted that counsel was not present at Stepheney’s prior convictions. Observing a lengthy criminal record, the Court instructed petitioner to submit a supplemental petition stating which convictions are allegedly invalid.
“The supplemental petition was filed May 29, 1973. Numerous convictions in state and federal courts are asserted as invalid. The record is void of any evidence indicating that the unconstitutionality of the prior convictions have been adjudicated in the Courts. Nevertheless, for purposes of the motion now before the Court, the supplemental petition will be deemed to be true.
“Striking out all prior convictions which petitioner alleges are invalid, and excluding all misdemeanors, the following convictions remain:
(1) In 1964, using motor vehicle without owner’s consent, United States District Court, Washington, D. C.;
(2) In 1967, housebreaking and larceny, General Sessions Court, Rich-land County, South Carolina;
(3) In 1967, housebreaking and larceny, General Sessions Court, Rich-land County, South Carolina;
(4) In 1967, breaking and entering a motor vehicle with intent to steal, grand larceny, General Sessions Court, Richland County, South Carolina;
(5) In 1968, housebreaking and larceny, General Sessions Court, Lexington County, South Carolina.
“After reviewing the prior conviction record and all other matter involved, the Court must conclude that the sentence imposed is appropriate even if each prior conviction allegedly invalid is removed and not considered. See Lipscomb v. Clark, 468 F.2d 1321, 1323 (5th Cir. 1972).
“Having determined from the trial record and petitioner’s adjusted conviction record that the sentence is appropriate, an evidentiary hearing will not be required. Accordingly,
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion to vacate sentence is denied. . . . ”
I note particularly that the district court cited Lipscomb v. Clark, 468 F.2d 1321, 1323 (5th Cir. 1972).
*11Although the language used by the district court, when read in context, is not to me equivocal and in my opinion complies with Brown, its reference to p. 1323 of Lipscomb should remove any doubt.
On p. 1323 of Lipscomb is the language that if the district court finds that the sentence previously imposed “would still be the appropriate sentence,” an order so setting forth would seem to comply with the requirements of Tucker We quoted and approved this language in Brown, at p. 118, saying: “We are disposed to approve this procedure.” And we referred to the procedure of seeing, as a preliminary matter, whether the convictions complained of might be considered void without actually so ascertaining. The procedure is described at p. 1323 of Lipscomb, as it was later at p. 118 of Brown, and was followed closely by the district judge.
I am thus unable to find error in the action of the district court. If it erred at all, which I do not concede, it was no more than the omission of the word “still,” which I think must be fairly implied from a reading of the entire order.
One further thing deserves attention.
While I do not agree with the majority as to whether or not the district judge in Stepheney followed Brown, I do agree with much of the concurring opinion of Judge Russell, for I note as does he that the opinion of the majority does not overrule the holding of Brown but rather is “substantially a rephrasing of the [Brown] rule,” and further agree with Judge Russell that the “categoric[al]” holding of the majority is as quoted by him as the last sentence of the next to the last paragraph of the majority opinion. I do not agree that the holding of Brown needs rephrasing, for the phrase “would still be the appropriate sentence,” Brown, p. 118; Lipscomb, p. 1323, seems to be equally as manageable, yet more simple in language, and therefore to me preferable to the categorical holding of the majority as quoted by Judge Russell.
I would further emphasize the following language from the majority opinion as it reaffirms Brown: “We follow Brown, construing its language consistently with its directions to the trial judge. So construed, we reaffirm Brown’s holding.”