United States ex rel. Williams v. Wilkins

Second Circuit

United States ex rel. Williams v. Wilkins

280 F.2d 95

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 7, 1960

DocketNo. 335, Docket 26081

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 280 F.2d 95 (United States ex rel. Williams v. Wilkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States ex rel. Williams v. Wilkins, 280 F.2d 95 (2d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The relator-appellant attacks his state conviction as a second felony offender in 1942, because the indictment alleged his prior conviction and it was thus brought to the attention of the jury to his asserted prejudice. He did not appeal his conviction, but in 1948, and again in [96]*961951, he sought relief in a state county-court by way of motions in the nature of coram nobis, and in 1959 by writ of habeas corpus, wherein the Appellate Division denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. People of State of New York ex rel. Williams v. Martin, 9 A.D.2d 635, 193 N.Y.S.2d 607. Appellant did not press these cases further. The practice followed in appellant’s indictment here was expressly approved in People v. De Santis, 305 N.Y. 44, 110 N.E.2d 549, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 944, 73 S.Ct. 839, 97 L.Ed. 1370. But in 1957 the legislature enacted N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. § 275-b, providing that the indictment should not allege prior convictions. See also the 1959 amendments to id. §§ 482, 717, upon recommendation of the Law Revision Commission, 1959 McKinney’s Sess.Laws of N.Y., pp. 1625-1630. Hence the present practice is to allege and prove such prior convictions only following a conviction.

The question raised appears to be one of state practice, presenting no issue of federal due process. Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728, 731, 68 S.Ct. 1256, 92 L.Ed. 1683; Vanderwyde v. Denno, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 113 F.Supp. 918, affirmed 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 105, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 949, 74 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed. 1096. Moreover, relator has- failed to exhaust state remedies and thus is barred from relief here under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States ex rel. Cuomo v. Fay, 2 Cir., 257 F.2d 438, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 935, 79 S.Ct. 325, 3 L.Ed.2d 307. And since New York will not now consider the contention, as it was not raised on direct appeal, People v. Noia, reported sub nom. People v. Caminito, 3 N.Y.2d 596, 170 N.Y.S.2d 799, 148 N.E.2d 139, certiorari denied Noia v. People of State of New York, 357 U.S. 905, 78 S.Ct. 1149, 2 L.Ed.2d 1156, it is outside the reach of the federal writ. Daniels v. Allen, reported sub nom. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 482-485, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469. For each of these several reasons the order below is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The relator-appellant attacks his state conviction as a second felony offender in 1942, because the indictment alleged his prior conviction and it was thus brought to the attention of the jury to his asserted prejudice. He did not appeal his conviction, but in 1948, and again in [96]*961951, he sought relief in a state county-court by way of motions in the nature of coram nobis, and in 1959 by writ of habeas corpus, wherein the Appellate Division denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. People of State of New York ex rel. Williams v. Martin, 9 A.D.2d 635, 193 N.Y.S.2d 607. Appellant did not press these cases further. The practice followed in appellant’s indictment here was expressly approved in People v. De Santis, 305 N.Y. 44, 110 N.E.2d 549, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 944, 73 S.Ct. 839, 97 L.Ed. 1370. But in 1957 the legislature enacted N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. § 275-b, providing that the indictment should not allege prior convictions. See also the 1959 amendments to id. §§ 482, 717, upon recommendation of the Law Revision Commission, 1959 McKinney’s Sess.Laws of N.Y., pp. 1625-1630. Hence the present practice is to allege and prove such prior convictions only following a conviction.

The question raised appears to be one of state practice, presenting no issue of federal due process. Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728, 731, 68 S.Ct. 1256, 92 L.Ed. 1683; Vanderwyde v. Denno, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 113 F.Supp. 918, affirmed 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 105, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 949, 74 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed. 1096. Moreover, relator has- failed to exhaust state remedies and thus is barred from relief here under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States ex rel. Cuomo v. Fay, 2 Cir., 257 F.2d 438, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 935, 79 S.Ct. 325, 3 L.Ed.2d 307. And since New York will not now consider the contention, as it was not raised on direct appeal, People v. Noia, reported sub nom. People v. Caminito, 3 N.Y.2d 596, 170 N.Y.S.2d 799, 148 N.E.2d 139, certiorari denied Noia v. People of State of New York, 357 U.S. 905, 78 S.Ct. 1149, 2 L.Ed.2d 1156, it is outside the reach of the federal writ. Daniels v. Allen, reported sub nom. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 482-485, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469. For each of these several reasons the order below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 F.2d 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-williams-v-wilkins-ca2-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack