Court Opinion

ID: 9452490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:42:08.149305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:14.108181
License: Public Domain

DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge.
Habeas Corpus. Wilson is in California state custody, having been convicted of burglary (two counts) and rape, on February 6, 1964. He did not appeal because, he says, he did not know of his right to appeal when sentenced. He has, however, sought habeas corpus in the state courts, on the grounds here asserted. They are:
“following the petitioner, arrest, he had requested to consult with attor*212ney; and had been denied to do so. The petitioner, then was forced by state police to make self-incrimination and confession during the accusatory stages of the secret interrogation. During the petitioner, trial by jury in the Superior Court: Whereupon there was the introduction into his trial of illegally obtained evidence, i. e. The state police’s testimony’s as to the self-incrimination and confession made by the petitioner, in a involuntary admission.”
Wilson sought leave to file and proceed in forma pauperis. Leave was denied, and it is from this denial that he appeals. The ground for denial was that the only issue raised was the Escobedo issue (Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758,12 L.Ed.2d 977) and that Escobedo is not applicable under Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882.
Denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis was error. Here, Wilson alleges that he was “forced” to incriminate himself, and that his confession was “involuntary.” This can be said to be a conclusion, but it is certainly subject to amendment, and the contention is not foreclosed by Johnson v. State of New Jersey, supra. See Doran v. Wilson, 9 Cir., 1966, 369 F.2d 505; Sessions v. Wilson, 9 Cir., 1966, 372 F.2d 366, (No. 20,861, decided November 28,1966). Under these circumstances, the proper procedure was to permit Wilson to proceed in forma pauperis, but to dismiss the application with leave to amend, pointing out the deficiency which requires amendment. The case is controlled by our decision in Pembrook v. Wilson, 9 Cir., 1966, 370 F.2d 37. See also McGarrity v. Wilson, 9 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 677.
The order is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.