Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Preston R. Griff v. B. J. Rhay, Superintendent of the Washington State Penitentiary, State of Washington

455 F.2d 494

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-02-08
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Griff was convicted of grand larceny by a Pierce County, Washington, jury. Prior to trial, his counsel moved to suppress testimony of eye-witnesses because it allegedly was based on an unconstitutional photo session, which was held during the investigatory stage of the ease. The trial judge denied the motion. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed Griff’s conviction, finding that any error in the case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, under Chapman v. California, 886 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Preston R. Griff v. B. J. Rhay, Superintendent of the Washington State Penitentiary, State of Washington. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
GRIFF v. RHAY,455 F.2d 494(9th Cir. 1972)
PRESTON R. GRIFF, APPELLANT, v. B. J. RHAY, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE WASHINGTON
STATE PENITENTIARY, STATE OF WASHINGTON, ET AL., APPELLEES.
No. 71-1923.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
February 8, 1972.
Preston R. Griff, in pro. per.

Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Lee D. Rickabaugh, Stephen G. Jamieson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Olympia, Wash., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Before MERRILL, ELY and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Griff was convicted of grand larceny by a Pierce County, Washington, jury. Prior to trial, his counsel moved to suppress testimony of eye-witnesses because it allegedly was based on an unconstitutional photo session, which was held during the investigatory stage of the case. The trial judge denied the motion.

[2] On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed Griff's conviction, finding that any error in the case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, under Chapman v. California,386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). State v. Griff,75 Wn.2d 267,450 P.2d 486(1969). Griff then raised the same issue in the present petition for a writ ofPage 495habeas corpus. The District Court denied the writ for the same reason, based solely on the reported opinion of the Washington Supreme Court. The trial transcript was not before the District Court.1

[3] Reliance on the reported opinion of the Washington Supreme Court was improper.See, e. g.,Tannehill v. Fitzharris,451 F.2d 1322(9th Cir. 1971); Sanchez v. Nelson,446 F.2d 849(9th Cir. 1971); Valdez v. California,439 F.2d 1405(9th Cir. 1971); Maxwell v. Eyman,429 F.2d 502(9th Cir. 1970). The District Court must make its determination as to the sufficiency of the state findings (respecting either harmless error or the merits of petitioner's claim) from its independent review of the record made in the state courts or grant hearing and make its own findings on the merits.SeeSelz v. California,423 F.2d 702(9th Cir. 1970).

[4] Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
  1. The appellees here assert that the records and files in the appeal to the state Supreme Court (including the trial transcript) were "incorporated in the District Court proceedings by reference." There is nothing in the record to suggest, however, that the District Court had such record before it, and such record is not a part of the record here on appeal. ↩