Court Opinion

ID: 9453455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:13:56.682812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:40.077342
License: Public Domain

VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge,
for affirmance but concurring in part in Judge FREEDMAN’s opinion and dissenting in part from such opinion:
I would affirm the December 7, 1966 order of the district court dismissing the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for failure of petitioner to exhaust the post-conviction remedy provided by N.J.R.R. 3:10A (Criminal Practice Rules) as stated in the last paragraph of Judge KALODNER’S dissenting opinion. It would appear that the delay in petitioner’s filing a petition at this time under *858this rule falls under the terms “excusable neglect” in N.J.R.R. 3:10A-13 since:
1. An application for post conviction relief was filed September, 1965 which was timely under Rule 3:10A-13 being prior to January 2,1967, which is 3 years after the effective date of Rule 3:10A.
2. This application was denied under the inadvertent mistake of the state court that it was not timely under Rule 3:10A (par. 4 of 7a-8a of record).
Federal policy is to permit the state courts to act first in such matters as this wherever possible. Cf. Henry v. State of Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 452, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965).
If the state court does not entertain a petition filed under N.J.R.R. 3:10A, appellant will be entitled to his hearing in the federal district court.
Judge STALEY joins in this opinion and we agree with Parts I and II of Judge FREEDMAN’S opinion.