Leon Rutherford King v. O.L. McCotter Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Leon Rutherford King v. O.L. McCotter Director, Texas Department of Corrections

795 F.2d 517, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 27568

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 30, 1986

Docket86-2006

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 795 F.2d 517 (Leon Rutherford King v. O.L. McCotter Director, Texas Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leon Rutherford King v. O.L. McCotter Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 795 F.2d 517, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 27568 (5th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner, Leon Rutherford King, was convicted in a Texas state court of first degree murder and sentenced to death. After exhausting his state remedies, King filed a petition for federal habe-as relief. In a one-sentence order, the district court denied King’s petition. In a separate order, the court issued a certificate of probable cause to appeal. We remand the case to the district court with instructions that a statement of reasons be provided for the denial of each claim presented in King’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

“We have repeatedly instructed the district courts in this circuit to set forth, albeit briefly and perhaps orally, the specific reasons for the disposition of a capital case even if to do so would require temporarily staying the execution.” Flowers v. Blackburn, 759 F.2d 1194, 1195 (5th Cir.1985). See, e.g., Mattheson v. King, 751 F.2d *518 1432, 1435 n. 5 (5th Cir.1985) (“in a capital case it is essential that a district court set forth those specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that underlie its ultimate disposition of the case”), cert. dismissed, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1798, 90 L.Ed.2d 343 (1986); Willie v. Maggio, 737 F.2d 1372, 1377 (5th Cir.1984) (“More important, however, particularly in a capital ease, is the requirement that the district court set forth ... those specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that underlie its ultimate conclusion to grant any relief”). Further, Local Rule 21 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas provides that an opinion of that court in any action petitioning for a stay of execution of a state court judgment “shall separately state each issue raised by the petition and rule expressly on each issue stating the reasons for each ruling made.” In a case such as this, where an execution date has not been set and, thus, not even a temporary stay of execution is involved, we can perceive no justification, and the district court has stated none, for its failure to follow the mandates of its Local Rule. Both the petitioner and the public are entitled to know the reasons for the court’s action. Furthermore, such reasons are indispensable to effective appellate review. Flowers, 759 F.2d at 1195.

Accordingly, this case is remanded to the district court with instructions that a statement of reasons be provided for the denial of each claim presented in King’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

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

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner, Leon Rutherford King, was convicted in a Texas state court of first degree murder and sentenced to death. After exhausting his state remedies, King filed a petition for federal habe-as relief. In a one-sentence order, the district court denied King’s petition. In a separate order, the court issued a certificate of probable cause to appeal. We remand the case to the district court with instructions that a statement of reasons be provided for the denial of each claim presented in King’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

“We have repeatedly instructed the district courts in this circuit to set forth, albeit briefly and perhaps orally, the specific reasons for the disposition of a capital case even if to do so would require temporarily staying the execution.” Flowers v. Blackburn, 759 F.2d 1194, 1195 (5th Cir.1985). See, e.g., Mattheson v. King, 751 F.2d *518 1432, 1435 n. 5 (5th Cir.1985) (“in a capital case it is essential that a district court set forth those specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that underlie its ultimate disposition of the case”), cert. dismissed, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1798, 90 L.Ed.2d 343 (1986); Willie v. Maggio, 737 F.2d 1372, 1377 (5th Cir.1984) (“More important, however, particularly in a capital ease, is the requirement that the district court set forth ... those specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that underlie its ultimate conclusion to grant any relief”). Further, Local Rule 21 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas provides that an opinion of that court in any action petitioning for a stay of execution of a state court judgment “shall separately state each issue raised by the petition and rule expressly on each issue stating the reasons for each ruling made.” In a case such as this, where an execution date has not been set and, thus, not even a temporary stay of execution is involved, we can perceive no justification, and the district court has stated none, for its failure to follow the mandates of its Local Rule. Both the petitioner and the public are entitled to know the reasons for the court’s action. Furthermore, such reasons are indispensable to effective appellate review. Flowers, 759 F.2d at 1195.

Accordingly, this case is remanded to the district court with instructions that a statement of reasons be provided for the denial of each claim presented in King’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

795 F.2d 517, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 27568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leon-rutherford-king-v-ol-mccotter-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack