Court Opinion

ID: 9478779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:57:48.340541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:36.803939
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the vacation of the order of the district court, which order had granted Parron’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and in the instructions to dismiss the petition, for the reasons stated in Judge Feinberg’s opinion. The state courts never addressed and decided Parron’s claim that the incompetence of his counsel resulted in the denial of his Sixth Amendment rights.
I disagree with my colleages, however, to the extent that their opinion implies that the record supports the magistrate’s finding that the state courts on appeal would have dismissed the indictment for failure to grant Parrón a speedy trial in accordance with the state speedy trial statute. In my view, our action today should permit of no inference that we agree with the magistrate’s conclusions, nor should it be inferred that we found any merit in the magistrate’s further conclusion, also adopted by the district court, that counsel’s failure to press the claim demonstrated counsel’s incompetence, thus violating Parron’s Sixth Amendment rights. My own study of the record before us leads me to the conclusion that the magistrate’s conclusions are not supported by the evidence.