Court Opinion

ID: 9454049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:34:08.821256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:56.740289
License: Public Domain

LAY, Circuit Judge,
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. It is inconceivable to me that we should turn deaf ears to this appeal. In effect, the majority opinion now rules that two prior orders of this court were erroneous, all to the jeopardy of the petitioner, who had in good faith relied upon those orders. Petitioner has been sentenced to death. He raises serious constitutional claims and, in my opinion, has a right to a full appellate review of those claims at this time.
The majority opinion adequately demonstrates that the district court’s original order of June 30,1965, was not an appealable order. There exists no debate as to this. This court in its order of March 7, 1966, acknowledge that the July 30 notice of appeal was premature. However, this court then ordered that “although” the appeal was premature, “upon due consideration” the “appeal would be held in abeyance” until a final order had been entered by the trial judge. This was fully within the discretion of a court of appeals to do. Cf. Lemke v. United States, 346 U.S. 325, 74 S.Ct. 1, 98 L.Ed. 3 (1953); Pryamid Motor Freight Corp. v. Ispass, 330 U.S. 695, 67 S.Ct. 954, 91 L.Ed. 1184 (1947) ; Stumpf v. Matthews, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 231, 195 F.2d 25 (1951); Christoffel v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C., 1, 190 F.2d 585, 588 (1951) (on reconsideration) .
Thus, petitioner’s counsel was originally led to believe that although his notice of appeal was premature, it would be held in abeyance until a final order was entered by the district court, at which time a timely appeal would lie. This court did not dismiss the appeal. If the intent of the court was that counsel should file a new notice of appeal it would have dismissed the appeal rather than holding it in abeyance. ' It is understandable why counsel did not bother to file another notice of appeal following the trial court’s subsequent entry of that order.
On February 7, 1967, upon petitioner’s motion this court vacated an earlier order of dismissal dated January 16, 1967, and reinstated the appeal upon the grounds that a final disposition of the case had not taken place (as contemplated by the March 7, 1966, order) when the court had earlier dismissed the' appeal.1 Thus, this court as of Febru*683ary 7, 1967, again acknowledged the effect of the March 7, 1966, order holding the appeal in abeyance. The record was then clear that a new notice of appeal had not been filed and none could thereafter ever he timely filed from the final order of the district court (filed September 29, 1966). Yet, this court reinstated the appeal on the basis of the earlier March 7,1966, order.
One might urge that res judicata does not apply to habeas corpus claims and that petitioner may refile his petition without prejudice in the federal district court. There is then, however, the real danger that the district court would deny these claims without a hearing on the ground that it has previously passed upon them. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963). Or perhaps petitioner may now urge in a separate habeas corpus proceeding that he was been denied appellate review because his counsel was ineffective in failing to perfect a proper appeal in the present proceeding. Cf. Williams v. United States, 402 F.2d 548 (8 Cir., October 31, 1968). These claims may take several months with subsequent appeals, the end result to be that some day, sometime, somewhere, petitioner will be given the appellate review to which he is now entitled.
We should recognize the true intent of the March 7, 1966, order and find no prejudice in the irregularity of the July 30, 1965, notice of appeal, cf. Lemke v. United States, supra, and grant review. At the very least, I think we could direct the trial court to enter a new order of dismissal and allow a new appeal.2 This will probably be the ultimate result several months from now, assuming a subsequent finding that petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel at a critical stage. This would logically follow since the effect of the majority’s opinion is that counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal because this court was originally mistaken in holding this appeal in “abeyance” or in later “reinstating” the appeal.
It seems patently unjust to me to prejudice petitioner’s rights by placing the burden solely on his counsel for failure to file a timely appeal in a situation the court itself has helped create. I cannot agree to the strained construction the majority places upon the March 7, 1966, order. But assuming this interpretation to be reasonable, we must all concede an ambiguity and obvious confusion to those who must rely upon it. I do not think petitioner should be the one to suffer because of it. We should not cast aside our own responsibility so lightly. To review the case upon its merits does not require judicial abdica*684tion of well-founded jurisdictional principles. It only necessitates judicial deference to a reasonable construction of the March 7, 1966, order as a lawful exercise of judicial power in order now to circumvent a possible, lasting prejudice. I cannot condone the idea that a court order, the law itself, can serve as a matrix for abortive process. To place petitioner on a procedural merry-go-round is to delve into procedural niceties which are too remote from justice and fair play and which violate the liberal spirit of the federal rules. Especially is this so when life or liberty is at stake.3

. Petitioner’s motion to vacate the dismissal of the appeal was based upon (1) this court’s order of March 7, 1966, retaining jurisdiction of the case and (2) the fact that even though the district court entered a final order in September 1966, the same was then premature. This related to the fact that there was still pending petitioner’s application of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court (denied February 27, 1967) challenging the affirmance of the Arkansas Supreme *683Court’s decision relating to the Jackson v. Denno hearing. The February 7, 1967, order of this court sustained petitioner’s motion.

. There would be legal justification to do this. When the district court entered its final order of dismissal, September 29, 1966, it was relying upon the affirmance of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, 241 Ark. 4, 406 S.W.2d 313, on the issue of the voluntariness of the confession. However, the mandate of the Supreme Court of Arkansas could not issue until after the Supreme Court had denied certiorari in that proceeding. See Stewart v. Arkansas, 386 U.S. 946, 87 S.Ct. 983, 17 L.Ed.2d 877 (Feb. 27, 1967). Thus, as recognized by this court’s order of February 7, 1967, there could be no final disposition by the district court until the state proceedings ivere final. Thus, one way to view the record is that even at the present time there exists no final order of the district court since the order of September 29, 1966, was entered prematurely'. After a new order of dismissal on all grounds, the petitioner could then file a timely notice of appeal.
In so holding, we should direct the district court to make a supplemental record with its own determination on the voluntariness of the confession. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 318, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963). This does not require a new evidentiary hearing unless the district court is not satisfied with the state court record. Ibid. See, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Cf. Maes v. Patterson, 401 F.2d 200 (10 Cir. Oct. 2, 1968).

. I must respectfully, but vigorously dissent from the added dictum of the majority opinion that prejudice will not result from this judgment since the issues raised by the petitioner are, in any. event, without merit. I cannot accept the adjudication of serious constitutional charges with such ease and light brush. Involved is a statement by a jury commissioner that the jury list was hand selected to be of venire men composed of 25% of members of the Negro race. This fact alone presents more than a frivolous appeal. If and when appellate review is finally granted, such issues merit thorough scrutiny.
This dissent is motivated solely by my concern for procedural due process. It would be written even if petitioner was under a 30-day sentence.