Court Opinion

ID: 9472149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:51:22.675341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:46.707629
License: Public Domain

CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would hold that Rule 9(a), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254, bars all claims presented in this long delayed petition. The State of Michigan has established that the 23 year delay has affected adversely its ability to respond to petitioner's Sixth Amendment claim. Indeed, the majority concedes that the prosecutors have no recollection of the events concerning petitioner’s trial, that the trial judge has no clear recollection of the proceedings, and that the transcript of the preliminary examination, the prosecutor’s files and files concerning petitioner’s state court appeals have been lost. Further, the record indicates that neither the trial judge nor the petitioner could remember whether the petitioner was even present at the degree hearing. In light of these facts, one cannot with any degree of probability determine whether the petitioner was informed adequately of his right to counsel for the degree hearing. Although courts cannot presume a waiver of counsel from a silent record, the silence in this instance is due primarily to petitioner’s inexcusable delay; the record contains no legitimate explanation for the more than twenty-three year delay which has affected clearly the memories of the only potential witnesses in this case. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the portion of this court’s decision granting, in part, petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus.