Edward Stanley Wadley v. People of the State of California, Louis S. Nelson, Warden, San Quentin State Prison

Ninth Circuit

Edward Stanley Wadley v. People of the State of California, Louis S. Nelson, Warden, San Quentin State Prison

413 F.2d 296, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11632

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 3, 1969

Docket22599

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 413 F.2d 296 (Edward Stanley Wadley v. People of the State of California, Louis S. Nelson, Warden, San Quentin State Prison) 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 Stanley Wadley v. People of the State of California, Louis S. Nelson, Warden, San Quentin State Prison, 413 F.2d 296, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11632 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Wadley was denied a writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction on the basis of McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238. Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034, and the exception to McNally enunciated there, were found inapplicable because Wadley’s parole on the prior conviction was not revoked solely because of the later conviction which he now attacks. Of course, the Supreme Court has overruled *297 McNally. Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426. The first issue presented is whether Peyton should be applied retroactively to render jurisdiction in the court below.

In Peyton, the Chief Justice said for the unanimous Court:

“[A] district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a prisoner incarcerated under consecutive sentences who claims that a sentence that he is scheduled to serve in the future is invalid because of a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”

391 U.S. at 55, 88 S.Ct. at 1550. There is no problem raised in applying this holding retroactively. Where retroactivity of a constitutional decision has been denied, the newly-enunciated rule is usually remedial, as where the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment is extended. See Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1048, 22 L.Ed.2d 248. Here sound court administration militates in favor of disposing of this case, and there has not been any prejudicial reliance by law enforcement in waiting until memories have faded. Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. at 65, 88 S.Ct. 1549. Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction.

On the merits of Wadley’s petition, three of the four grounds he cites for issuance of the writ have not been properly presented to the California state courts. As a matter of comity, we need not consider whether Wadley has been prejudiced by defense counsel’s alleged conflict of interest, by testimony given by co-defendant Landry, or by prosecutorial comment. See Conway v. Wilson, 9 Cir., 368 F.2d 485, cert. den. 386 U.S. 925, 87 S.Ct. 897, 17 L.Ed.2d 798.

On the fourth issue raised by Wadley, that testimony of Witness Keto about the purchase of a Cadillac auto was prejudicial, we agree with the characterization of the California Court of Appeal, 2d Appellate District, Division 5. That Court in an unreported opinion described this testimony as “colorless.” We see no due process unfairness in the trial court’s having left this unobjeeted to evidence remain in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Wadley was denied a writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction on the basis of McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238. Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034, and the exception to McNally enunciated there, were found inapplicable because Wadley’s parole on the prior conviction was not revoked solely because of the later conviction which he now attacks. Of course, the Supreme Court has overruled *297 McNally. Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426. The first issue presented is whether Peyton should be applied retroactively to render jurisdiction in the court below.

In Peyton, the Chief Justice said for the unanimous Court:

“[A] district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a prisoner incarcerated under consecutive sentences who claims that a sentence that he is scheduled to serve in the future is invalid because of a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”

391 U.S. at 55, 88 S.Ct. at 1550. There is no problem raised in applying this holding retroactively. Where retroactivity of a constitutional decision has been denied, the newly-enunciated rule is usually remedial, as where the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment is extended. See Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1048, 22 L.Ed.2d 248. Here sound court administration militates in favor of disposing of this case, and there has not been any prejudicial reliance by law enforcement in waiting until memories have faded. Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. at 65, 88 S.Ct. 1549. Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction.

On the merits of Wadley’s petition, three of the four grounds he cites for issuance of the writ have not been properly presented to the California state courts. As a matter of comity, we need not consider whether Wadley has been prejudiced by defense counsel’s alleged conflict of interest, by testimony given by co-defendant Landry, or by prosecutorial comment. See Conway v. Wilson, 9 Cir., 368 F.2d 485, cert. den. 386 U.S. 925, 87 S.Ct. 897, 17 L.Ed.2d 798.

On the fourth issue raised by Wadley, that testimony of Witness Keto about the purchase of a Cadillac auto was prejudicial, we agree with the characterization of the California Court of Appeal, 2d Appellate District, Division 5. That Court in an unreported opinion described this testimony as “colorless.” We see no due process unfairness in the trial court’s having left this unobjeeted to evidence remain in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

413 F.2d 296, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-stanley-wadley-v-people-of-the-state-of-california-louis-s-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack