Haas v. Grafton County Jail

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: November 7, 1996
• Docket: CV-94-385-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

Haas v . Grafton County Jail CV-94-385-M 11/07/96 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Haas

v. Civil N o . 94-385-M Grafton County Jail

O R D E R

On July 2 0 , 1994, Joseph S . Haas petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, challenging his conviction and sentence for criminal contempt in Grafton County (New Hampshire) Superior Court. Haas argued that his contempt conviction violated his federal constitutional rights because he was denied a trial by jury. His petition was initially dismissed for failure to exhaust available state remedies, but was reinstated when he filed a motion apparently showing that exhaustion was complete. Grafton County has responded. Although it appears that Haas is not entitled to federal habeas relief under the facts pled, he is granted thirty days from the date of this order to respond to the deficiencies in his petition described below.

Following preliminary review of Haas's petition for habeas relief, the Magistrate Judge granted him an opportunity to amend his petition to clarify whether he had exhausted his state

remedies as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. Haas responded on

August 2 , 1994, that he was waiting for the New Hampshire Supreme

Court to act on his motion to reconsider its denial of his appeal

of his conviction of criminal contempt.1 As a result, the

Magistrate Judge determined that Haas did not meet the exhaustion

requirement and recommended that his petition be denied. The

petition was dismissed on October 6, 1994.

On March 1 7 , 1995, however, Haas filed a "Motion to

Entertain Petition" in which he alleged that he had exhausted

state remedies. He also alleged that he would begin to serve the

remainder of his sentence for contempt beginning on March 2 7 ,

1995. The Magistrate Judge determined that Haas then met the

statutory requirements to petition for habeas corpus relief, and

ordered a response from the Grafton County House of Correction.

See Order dated March 2 3 , 1995. Following an excused default,

Grafton County filed its answer to Haas's petition on June 2 3 ,

1 Haas filed materials with his "Amendment" which show that he was charged with criminal contempt and demanded a jury trial. The Grafton County Superior Court determined that the maximum imposable punishment would not exceed six months imprisonment, so a jury trial was not constitutionally required. Following a bench trial, Haas was sentenced on January 3 1 , 1994, to imprisonment for five months and twenty-nine days and a $1,000 fine. He filed an appeal with the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which was denied, and then he moved to reconsider.

2 1995. On July 1 0 , 1995, a pretrial conference was scheduled to

be held before the Magistrate Judge on August 1 , 1995, but that

conference was subsequently cancelled.

Both the Magistrate Judge and the respondent, Grafton

County, interpreted Haas's petition for habeas relief to assert a

constitutional right to a jury trial on the charge of indirect

criminal contempt. If that is Haas's claim, it is insufficient

on its face to support his habeas petition.

The Sixth Amendment2 does not require a jury trial for petty

criminal offenses, which are defined to include those with

penalties of less than six months imprisonment and fines that do

not impose serious sanctions. See, e.g. Lewis v . United States,

116 S . C t . 2163, 2166-67 (1996); International Union, UMWA v .

Bagwell, 114 S . C t . 2552, 2562 n.5 (1994); Blanton v . City of

North Las Vegas, Nev., 489 U.S. 5 3 8 , 541-44 (1989); Muniz v .

Hoffman, 422 U.S. 4 5 4 , 475-77 (1975); see also State v . Martina,

135 N.H. 111 (1991) (discussing criminal contempt under New

Hampshire l a w ) . Generally, offenses punishable by fines of less

than $5,000 are considered to be petty offenses. See

2 The right to jury trial is protected by the Sixth Amendment, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Duncan v . Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 148 (1968).

3 International Union, 114 S . C t . at 2562 n.5; Blanton, 489 U.S. at 544-45. As the length of Haas's sentence was limited before trial to less than six months imprisonment and the sentence he received was less than six months plus a $1,000 fine, he was convicted of a petty offense which did not require a jury trial. Accordingly, Haas is not entitled to habeas relief based on a claimed deprivation of his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Because Haas's petition is not entirely clear, however, he is hereby granted thirty (30) days from the date of this order to amend his petition, if he so chooses, to assert a cognizable basis for habeas relief or to make clear what other basis he intended to advance that the court has not recognized.

SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge November 7 , 1996

cc: Joseph Sanders Haas, J r . Wayne P. Coull, Esq.