United States of America Ex Rel. David Cyril Read, Relator-Appellant v. Walter B. Martin, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, N.Y.

Second Circuit

United States of America Ex Rel. David Cyril Read, Relator-Appellant v. Walter B. Martin, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, N.Y.

263 F.2d 606, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4461

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 1959

Docket25340_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 263 F.2d 606 (United States of America Ex Rel. David Cyril Read, Relator-Appellant v. Walter B. Martin, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, N.Y.) 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 of America Ex Rel. David Cyril Read, Relator-Appellant v. Walter B. Martin, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, N.Y., 263 F.2d 606, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4461 (2d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Relator, convicted in 1954 on a plea of guilty to a felony charge in a New York state court, attacks his sentence as a second offender based upon his conviction of robbery in the Magistrate’s Court, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in 1950. He does not allege that the Canadian procedures which resulted in his conviction were in any way improper or violative of due process, but takes the formal position that New York cannot thus make use of a judgment of a foreign country, asserting also that the court is not one of record, that the offense is not shown to be a felony, and that the information was insufficient. Respondent contends that relator has not exhausted all other remedies available to him. We prefer, however, to put our decision on broad grounds. The same claims were presented in an earlier petition which Judge Burke denied, thereafter refusing a certificate of probable cause. Then on October 17, 1957, we refused such a certificate, saying that the question attempted to be presented as to the Canadian conviction “is one for the state courts and does not present a federal question”; and we dismissed the appeal. We perceive no reason for changing our views; the question of using a Canadian conviction for robbery not challenged for fairness in the appli *607 cation of the state second offender law, N. Y. Penal Law § 1941, seems preeminently one of state procedure.

Judge Morgan’s reasoned memorandum decision, 170 F.Supp. 415, takes this same ground. It appears that meanwhile relator had pressed other attacks, state and federal, attempting to raise the same issues. Under the circumstances the grant of a certificate of probable cause, enabling relator to appeal, appears to have been improvident, merely stimulating him to renewed efforts doomed to fail. Under the circumstances appointment of counsel to present again issues upon which we have' already ruled definitely would put an entirely inappropriate burden upon generous officers of the court.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Relator, convicted in 1954 on a plea of guilty to a felony charge in a New York state court, attacks his sentence as a second offender based upon his conviction of robbery in the Magistrate’s Court, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in 1950. He does not allege that the Canadian procedures which resulted in his conviction were in any way improper or violative of due process, but takes the formal position that New York cannot thus make use of a judgment of a foreign country, asserting also that the court is not one of record, that the offense is not shown to be a felony, and that the information was insufficient. Respondent contends that relator has not exhausted all other remedies available to him. We prefer, however, to put our decision on broad grounds. The same claims were presented in an earlier petition which Judge Burke denied, thereafter refusing a certificate of probable cause. Then on October 17, 1957, we refused such a certificate, saying that the question attempted to be presented as to the Canadian conviction “is one for the state courts and does not present a federal question”; and we dismissed the appeal. We perceive no reason for changing our views; the question of using a Canadian conviction for robbery not challenged for fairness in the appli *607 cation of the state second offender law, N. Y. Penal Law § 1941, seems preeminently one of state procedure.

Judge Morgan’s reasoned memorandum decision, 170 F.Supp. 415, takes this same ground. It appears that meanwhile relator had pressed other attacks, state and federal, attempting to raise the same issues. Under the circumstances the grant of a certificate of probable cause, enabling relator to appeal, appears to have been improvident, merely stimulating him to renewed efforts doomed to fail. Under the circumstances appointment of counsel to present again issues upon which we have' already ruled definitely would put an entirely inappropriate burden upon generous officers of the court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 F.2d 606, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-david-cyril-read-relator-appellant-v-ca2-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack