Edward Griggs, Jr. v. Superintendent, Anchorage State Jail, and State of Alaska

Ninth Circuit

Edward Griggs, Jr. v. Superintendent, Anchorage State Jail, and State of Alaska

469 F.2d 87, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6832

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 7, 1972

Docket72-1726

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 469 F.2d 87 (Edward Griggs, Jr. v. Superintendent, Anchorage State Jail, and State of Alaska) 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

Edward Griggs, Jr. v. Superintendent, Anchorage State Jail, and State of Alaska, 469 F.2d 87, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6832 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM :

Griggs appeals from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus which he sought to prevent his extradition from Alaska to California. The sole issue is whether the district court erred in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(3).

Griggs alleged in his petition that a six-month delay in extradition denied him due process of law, and now contends that the state court hearing did not adequately develop the facts material to this issue. However, the facts at the state court hearing were not in dispute, and Griggs did not allege any additional facts in his federal petition indicating that he was prejudiced by the delay. Cf. United States v. Marion, 1971, 404 U.S. 307, 325-326. In such circumstances, the district court was justified in concluding that an evidentiary hearing would serve no purpose. Rainsberger v. Fogliani, 9 Cir., 380 F.2d 783, 785.

Moreover, Griggs’ counsel, in the state proceeding, specifically agreed to the state court’s factual findings and declined an opportunity to request additional findings. See Townsend v. Sain, 1963, 372 U.S. 293, 317, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 770.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM :

Griggs appeals from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus which he sought to prevent his extradition from Alaska to California. The sole issue is whether the district court erred in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(3).

Griggs alleged in his petition that a six-month delay in extradition denied him due process of law, and now contends that the state court hearing did not adequately develop the facts material to this issue. However, the facts at the state court hearing were not in dispute, and Griggs did not allege any additional facts in his federal petition indicating that he was prejudiced by the delay. Cf. United States v. Marion, 1971, 404 U.S. 307, 325-326. In such circumstances, the district court was justified in concluding that an evidentiary hearing would serve no purpose. Rainsberger v. Fogliani, 9 Cir., 380 F.2d 783, 785.

Moreover, Griggs’ counsel, in the state proceeding, specifically agreed to the state court’s factual findings and declined an opportunity to request additional findings. See Townsend v. Sain, 1963, 372 U.S. 293, 317, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 770.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 F.2d 87, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-griggs-jr-v-superintendent-anchorage-state-jail-and-state-of-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack