Court Opinion

ID: 2964310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:51.107291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:32.644753
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        October 4, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2138

                               WALTER D. JOHNSON, JR.,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                    PAUL DIPAOLO,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr, and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Walter D. Johnson on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Elisabeth J. Medvedow,
            _________________                        _____________________
        Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Bureau, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Petitioner Walter Johnson filed the instant
                 __________

            petition for  a writ  of habeas corpus  in 1993,  complaining

            primarily  of  delay attending  the  progress  of his  direct

            criminal appeal in  state court.   In response, the  district

            court issued a conditional writ directing respondent (a state

            official)  to undertake  efforts  to get  the appeal  back on

            track.   These  measures proved  successful: new  counsel was

            appointed  and  the  Massachusetts  Appeals Court  agreed  to

            reinstate the appeal.   Once oral argument in the  appeal was

            held,  the district  court  dismissed the  petition as  moot.

            Subsequently,   the   Appeals   Court  vacated   petitioner's

            conviction, and the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) accepted the

            case for further review. 

                 To the extent we  can decipher petitioner's arguments on

            appeal,  he  apparently  contends  that the  delay  here  was

            sufficiently  protracted  so as  to  compel  reversal of  his

            conviction and to necessitate his unconditional release  from

            custody.  We disagree.   "Whether an appellate delay  results

            in  prejudice sufficient  to warrant  reversing  a conviction

            rests,  most importantly, on  a showing that  it has impaired

            the appeal or the  defense in the event of  retrial."  United
                                                                   ______

            States  v. Luciano-Mosquera,  63  F.3d 1142,  1158 (1st  Cir.
            ______     ________________

            1995), cert.  denied, 116 S.  Ct. 1879 (1996);  accord, e.g.,
                   _____________                            ______  ____

            Simmons  v. Beyer,  44  F.3d 1160,  1170-71 (3d  Cir.), cert.
            _______     _____                                       _____

                                         -2-

            denied,  116 S. Ct. 271  (1995); Cody v.  Henderson, 936 F.2d
            ______                           ____     _________

            715, 719-22(2d Cir. 1991). No such showing hasbeen made here.

                 In  the event petitioner is subjected to a new trial, he

            remains free at that  time to argue that the  appellate delay

            has  impaired his ability to defend himself at retrial.  See,
                                                                     ___

            e.g.,  Hayes v.  Evans,  70 F.3d  85,  86 (10th  Cir.  1995).
            ____   _____     _____

            Alternatively,   in  the  event  petitioner's  conviction  is

            ultimately affirmed by the SJC, the dismissal here is without

            prejudice to  the filing of  a new habeas  petition advancing

            any constitutional  challenges petitioner might  have to  his

            underlying  conviction  that  were  raised   in  petitioner's

            present petition  in the district  court but not  resolved by

            the  district court  in light of  its ruling on  the issue of

            delay.

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -3-