Richard L. Hunt v. Frank A. Eyman, Warden
405 F.2d 384
January 21, 1969 · Docket 22807_1
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The appellant argued that his illegal removal from California deprived him of a valid conviction. The court held that even if the extradition were improper, it does not automatically entitle him to relief.
- Headnote 2
The appellant claimed that the trial court’s rejection of his insanity defense under the M’Naghten rule violated his constitutional rights. The court held that the rule’s application is constitutionally permissible.
- Headnote 3
Even if appellant were wrong about being illegally brought from California to Arizona, that error alone does not entitle him to relief because the conviction itself remains valid.
- Headnote 4
Appellant argued that rejecting his insanity defense under the M’Naghten rule violated his constitutional rights, but the Court held that the rule’s use is permissible and does not give rise to a habeas claim.
- Headnote 5
Although appellant argued he was illegally extradited from California, the court held that even if true, the allegation would not entitle him to relief, citing Frisbie, Ker, and Tynan.
- Headnote 6
The opinion rejects appellant’s claim that the trial court’s use of the M’Naghten rule infringed his constitutional rights, relying on precedents from Leland and Ramer.
- Headnote 7
Although the appellant alleged illegal extradition from California to Arizona, the opinion held that even if true, the claim does not automatically warrant habeas relief, relying on precedents that require a conviction‑invalidating defect.
- Headnote 8
The appellant’s claim that the trial court’s use of the M’Naghten rule infringed his constitutional rights was rejected; the opinion cites Supreme Court authority affirming the constitutionality of the rule.
- Headnote 9
The court held that even if the inmate was improperly brought from California, such a defect does not, by itself, entitle him to a writ of habeas corpus.
- Headnote 10
The opinion rejected the inmate’s claim that the trial court’s use of the M’Naghten rule infringed his constitutional rights, citing Supreme Court precedent upholding the rule’s constitutionality.
- Headnote 11
The district court denied the petition because the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies, noting the statutory exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- Headnote 12
The opinion noted that the appellant could still appeal his conviction if he demonstrated a lack of fault, citing Rule 16(a) of the Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court.
- Headnote 13
The court observed that the Arizona courts had resentenced the appellant to the statutory maximum, rendering the recidivist sentencing issue moot.
- Headnote 14
The appellant claimed illegal extradition from California to Arizona, but the court held that even if true, it would not entitle him to relief.
- Headnote 15
The court held that rejecting the appellant’s insanity defense under the M’Naghten rule did not infringe his constitutional rights.
Opinion
Appellant is a prisoner of the State of Arizona, convicted of grand theft, Ariz. R.S. §§ 13-661, 13-663, with a prior felony charge, violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312. He was sentenced as a recidivist, receiving a longer sentence (12 years) than that provided by the statute defining the substantive offense (10 years maximum). He did not appeal, but, within the time allowed for appeal, filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the state courts, which were denied without opinion. He could still appeal his conviction in the state court if he could show that his failure to appeal was “without fault on his part.” (Rule 16(a), Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, 17 Ariz.R.S.) The district judge denied the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that appellant had not exhausted his state remedies. (28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c).) He thought it probable that the state courts denied the writs because appellant had not appealed his conviction.
Because there is doubt whether appellant now has an available state remedy as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, we decide the matter on other grounds.
1. 1. The recidivist issue.
Since appellant’s petition was filed, the Arizona courts have upheld appellant’s contention that he was unlawfully found to be a recidivist, and he has been resentenced to 10 years. This question is moot.
2. 2. Illegal extradition.
Appellant says that he was illegally brought from California to Arizona. Arizona says that he was properly extradited. Even if appellant were right, that would not entitle him to the writ. Frisbie v. Collins, 1952, 342 U.S. 519, 522, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541; Ker v. Illinois, 1886, 119 U.S. 436, 444, 7 S.Ct. 225, 30 L.Ed. 421; Tynan v. Eyman, 9 Cir., 1967, 371 F.2d 764; cf. Keegan v. United States, 9 Cir., 1967, 385 F.2d 260, 264.
3. 3. Definition of insanity.
Appellant claims that it was a violation of his federal constitutional rights for the state trial court to apply the so-called M’Naghten rule in rejecting evidence offered in support of his claim that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. Application of that rule by a state does not violate the United States Constitution. Leland v. Oregon, 1952, 343 U.S. 790, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1302. Cf. Ramer v. United States, 9 Cir., 1968, 390 F.2d 564, 576.
Affirmed.