Daniel Ray Patterson v. Warden, San Luis Obispo

Ninth Circuit

Daniel Ray Patterson v. Warden, San Luis Obispo

624 F.2d 69, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17586

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 14, 1980

Docket79-2517

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 624 F.2d 69 (Daniel Ray Patterson v. Warden, San Luis Obispo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel Ray Patterson v. Warden, San Luis Obispo, 624 F.2d 69, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17586 (9th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Patterson’s petition for habeas corpus alleged facts which, if proven, might establish that his confession was not voluntary and that the Miranda warnings were defective. The allegations were not so vague, conclusory, or patently frivolous so as to warrant summary dismissal of the petition. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-6, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629-1630, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). Nor do we accept the state’s invitation to affirm dismissal on the ground that the rationale of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), a Fourth Amendment case, extends to preclude reexamination of Fifth Amendment claims in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Indeed, the rationale of Stone v. Powell has not been so extended.

Even if we view the district court’s order as a denial of the petition on the merits, we cannot affirm because of the incompleteness of the court’s findings and conclusions. Rhinehart v. Gunn, 598 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1979). In reviewing the petition, the district court must determine whether the state court findings are substantially supported by the record and whether the state court applied the proper legal standard. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Taylor v. Cardwell, 579 F.2d 1380, 1382-83 (9th Cir. 1978).

The judgment is vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Patterson’s petition for habeas corpus alleged facts which, if proven, might establish that his confession was not voluntary and that the Miranda warnings were defective. The allegations were not so vague, conclusory, or patently frivolous so as to warrant summary dismissal of the petition. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-6, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629-1630, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). Nor do we accept the state’s invitation to affirm dismissal on the ground that the rationale of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), a Fourth Amendment case, extends to preclude reexamination of Fifth Amendment claims in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Indeed, the rationale of Stone v. Powell has not been so extended.

Even if we view the district court’s order as a denial of the petition on the merits, we cannot affirm because of the incompleteness of the court’s findings and conclusions. Rhinehart v. Gunn, 598 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1979). In reviewing the petition, the district court must determine whether the state court findings are substantially supported by the record and whether the state court applied the proper legal standard. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Taylor v. Cardwell, 579 F.2d 1380, 1382-83 (9th Cir. 1978).

The judgment is vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 F.2d 69, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-ray-patterson-v-warden-san-luis-obispo-ca9-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack