Court Opinion

ID: 9847639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:03:51.039562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:24.571823
License: Public Domain

Barrow, J.,
dissenting.
I agree that this court is without jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus appeals arising from convictions where the death penalty has been imposed. However, I would not dismiss this proceeding but would direct the clerk of this court to return the record to the Supreme Court.
Peterson has taken all steps necessary to entitle him to have his petition for appeal considered on its merits by the Supreme Court. He filed a timely notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and subsequently filed a timely petition for appeal.
The Supreme Court on its own volition transferred this matter to this court. This court treated it as an appeal of right, received *322briefs and oral argument on the merits of the appeal and now dismisses it for lack of jurisdiction.
This dismissal prevents Peterson’s petition for appeal from being considered on its merits. A new notice of appeal would not be timely and an appeal of this decision raises only the issue of jurisdiction, not the underlying question of whether he should be granted an appeal from the judgment of the trial court.
Dismissing Peterson’s petition for appeal raises constitutional questions. Although Virginia is not “required to establish avenues of appellate review . . . once established, these avenues must be kept free of unreasoned distinctions that can only impede open and equal access to the courts.” Rinadli v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 310, (1966). Even an otherwise appropriate judicial ruling cannot be used to thwart a criminal defendant’s equal opportunity for appellate review. See Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 498 (1963); Cleaver v. Bordenkircher, 634 F.2d 1010, 1012 (6th Cir. 1980); Ruetz v. Lash, 500 F.2d 1225, 1230 (7th Cir. 1974).
Eventually the merits of Peterson’s petition for appeal may be heard. Our Supreme Court may allow, or a federal court may require, a delayed appeal, see Williams v. Coiner, 392 F.2d 210, 213 (4th Cir. 1968), or another petition may be filed. See Code § 17-97. Resort to these alternatives however, will unnecessarily delay resolution of this capital case.
The problems created by dismissing this appeal can be avoided by directing the clerk of this court to return the record in this matter to the Supreme Court. This would permit the Supreme Court to review Peterson’s petition for appeal and would also permit review of this jurisdictional decision.