Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Walter Williams v. Walter E. Craven, Warden, California Adult Authority

460 F.2d 1253

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-05-30
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • stating petitioner may renew 4
  • petition in district court if petitioner is able to demonstrate satisfaction of the 5
  • affirming lower court's decision to deny state 4
  • prisoner's habeas corpus petition after finding he failed to establish that he has exhausted available 5
  • state remedies with respect to the issues presented to the district court

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Walter Williams v. Walter E. Craven, Warden, California Adult Authority. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
54 opinions
WILLIAMS v. CRAVEN,460 F.2d 1253(9th Cir. 1972)
WALTER WILLIAMS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. WALTER E. CRAVEN, WARDEN,
CALIFORNIA ADULT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.
No. 71-1067.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 30, 1972.
Page 1254
Walter Williams, in pro. per.

Jack K. Weber, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before BARNES and ELY, Circuit Judges, and WALLACE,fn*District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals from an order of the District Court denying his petition for habeas corpus relief. We affirm on the ground that Williams has failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that he has exhausted state remedies in respect to the issues presented to the District Court.SeeSchiers v. California,333 F.2d 173(9th Cir. 1964).

[2] In his petition below, Williams claimed that in the course of parole revocation proceedings he was deprived of his constitutional rights to counsel, to confrontation and cross-examination of hostile witnesses, and to production of witnesses in his own behalf. He also urged that the California Indeterminate Sentence Law was unconstitutionally applied so as to allow the increasing of his maximum sentence after the sentence had already been fixed and refixed. Subsequent to the District Court's order of denial, it appears that further allegedly unconstitutional refixing of the sentence was effected by the California Adult Authority; consequently, the last link in the chain of events giving rise to Williams' claims has not yet been presented either to state tribunals or to the District Court. We should not, and will not, consider the merits without affording to California courts the first opportunity to consider Williams' claims in light of the totality of circumstances.

[3] We note that the District Court apparently did not consider Williams' contentions concerning confrontation1and production of witnesses.2If Williams does exhaust his state remedies and return to the District Court, or if he is able to demonstrate that he has already satisfied the exhaustion requirement of28 U.S.C. § 2254, then he may renew his petition in the District Court. At such time, in light of the complicated nature of the important constitutional issues presented by Williams,3we believePage 1255it desirable for the District Court to appoint counsel to assist Williams in the preparation and presentation of his petition.

[4] Affirmed.Page 1260
  1. Honorable J. Clifford Wallace, United States District Judge, San Diego, California, sitting by designation. ↩
  2. Cf.Hester v. Craven,322 F. Supp. 1256(C.D.Cal. 1971). ↩
  3. Cf.Bearden v. South Carolina,443 F.2d 1090(4th Cir. 1971). ↩
  4. The complexity and importance of these issues are indicated in recent decisions considering contentions similar or identical to those advanced by Williams.SeeDorado v. Kerr,454 F.2d 892(9th Cir. 1972); Bearden v. South Carolina,443 F.2d 1090(4th Cir. 1971); United States ex rel. Bey v. Connecticut State Bd. of Parole,443 F.2d 1079(2d Cir. 1971); Hester v. Craven, 322 F. Supp. 1256 (C.D. Cal. 1971); In re Tucker,5 Cal.3d 171, 95 Cal.Rptr. 761,486 P.2d 657(1971).See also,Lincoln v. California Adult Authority,435 F.2d 133(9th Cir. 1970). ↩