Where it appears that petitioner state prisoner was not accorded
effective review of his appeal from the District Court's denial of
his habeas corpus petition because the Court of Appeals, in its
affirmance order, referred to denial of relief under the wrong
federal statute and to the wrong District Court and case, the Court
of Appeals' judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to that
court for further consideration.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.
PER CURIAM.
A Federal District Court entered a final order denying the
petitioner habeas corpus relief. Under federal law, the petitioner
had a statutory right to appellate review of that decision. 28
U.S.C. § 2253. Because it appears that effective appellate review
may not have been accorded in this case, the writ of certiorari is
granted, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.
The petitioner pleaded guilty to narcotics and firearms
violations in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City, and was
sentenced to a term of 20 years in the Maryland state penitentiary.
In 1975, after exhausting state post-conviction remedies, he filed
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that several
specific constitutional violations had occurred in the state
prosecution. The District Court dismissed the petition without an
evidentiary hearing. The petitioner,
pro se, took an
appeal to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the order of the
District Court in the following language:
"PER CURIAM:"
"A review of the record and of the district court's opinion
discloses that this appeal from the order of the district
Page 435 U. S. 560
court denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is without merit.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed for the reasons stated by the
district court.
Blizzard v. Mahan, C/A No. 76-0117-CRT
(E.D.N.C., Sept. 13, 1976)."
AFFIRMED.
Clearly, this per curiam order has nothing whatsoever to do with
the petitioner's case. He had filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, not a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He had
sought relief in a federal court in Maryland, not one in North
Carolina. The case of
Blizzard v. Mahan, in short, is
wholly unrelated to the petitioner's case.
*
It may be that the petitioner's contentions are wholly
frivolous. But it is not enough that a just result may have been
reached.
"[T]o perform its high function in the best way, 'justice must
satisfy the appearance of justice.'
Offutt v. United
States, 348 U. S. 11,
348 U. S.
14."
In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133,
349 U. S. 136
(1955);
cf. In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1,
387 U. S. 26
(1967). Accordingly, in the exercise of our power to "require such
further proceedings to be had as may be just under the
circumstances," 28 U.S.C. § 2106, we grant the motion for leave to
proceed
in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari,
vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case
to it for further consideration.
It is so ordered.
* The petition for certiorari in No. 77-939,
Blizzard v.
Mahan, (denied,
post, p. 951), shows that the Court
of Appeals' per curiam order in that case (filed on the same day as
the order in the present case) is identical to the one quoted in
the text above.
Comments
Be the first to comment
Leave a Comment