Court Opinion

ID: 9737543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:28:14.160052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:59.669247
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Justice
(concurring specially.)
I concur in the result.
Division II of the majority opinion is unnecessary. In light of the penchant of federal courts to reexamine prior proceedings in criminal cases in depth, Division II is ill-advised. We have recently quoted Sewell v. Lainson, 244 Iowa 555, 566, 57 N.W.2d 556, 562 with approval:
“Since the federal courts have announced the principle that in habeas corpus proceedings they will examine the records and will go behind the records in courts of the various states to determine whether the petitioner’s rights under the constitution of the United States have been denied him and so lack of jurisdiction in the state court appears, we think it incumbent upon us to make the same examination for ourselves.”
No determination of the scope of habeas corpus proceedings should be attempted here. This is especially true in light of Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed. 2d 837.
I would therefore delete Division II of the majority opinion.