ROBERT HAYWARD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER T. STONE, SUPERINTENDENT, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that failure to anticipate a change in law occurring after an appeal does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
Petitioner sought habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal from his state court conviction. His counsel did not argue that …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
On an earlier appeal in this habeas corpus proceeding, we remanded for further proceedings in the district court and expressed no opinion on the merit of Hayward’s claim. Hayward v. Stone, 496 F. 2d 844 (9th Cir. 1974).
Upon remand, the district court issued an order to show cause, the respondents filed a return and lodged copies of the reporter’s and clerk’s transcripts on appeal of Hayward’s 1968 state court trial. Petitioner filed a traverse in opposition to the respondent’s return.
Hayward was convicted in state court of robbery with great bodily injury and assault with a deadly weapon. In his brief herein, appellant “acknowledges the fact that the record divulged that the victim had been shot.”
But Hayward’s habeas corpus petition alleges that he was denied effective aid and assistance of counsel on appeal in that counsel did not argue to the California appellate courts that the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury sua sponte on what constituted “great bodily injury” was reversible error. The district court, in rejecting the incompetent counsel argument, noted that Hayward’s former counsel on appeal vigorously and competently argued for reversal. It was concluded that the petitioner had failed to prove that the service of counsel was of such caliber as to render the representation a farce or mockery of justice. Vargas v. United States, 455 F. 2d 501, 502 (9th Cir. 1972).
The California appellate decision upon which petitioner relies, People v. Richardson, 23 Cal.App.3d 403, 100 Cal.Rptr. 251 (1972), was decided a year and a half after Hayward’s conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal.
The failure of petitioner’s appellate counsel to anticipate a modification in California law, occurring some 18 months after the disposition of the appeal, fell far short of establishing that counsel did not render reasonably effective assistance. Smith v. United States, 446 F. 2d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 1971); Kreiling v. Field, 431 F. 2d 502, 504 (9th Cir. 1970); Kruchten v. Eyman, 406 F. 2d 304, 312 (9th Cir. 1969), modified on other grounds, 408 U.S. 934, 92 S.Ct. 2853, 33 L.Ed.2d 748 (1972); Brubaker v. Dickson, 310 F. 2d 30, 37 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 978, 83 S.Ct. 1110, 10 L.Ed.2d 143 (1963)
The order of the district court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1978)
Authorities Cited
- Brubaker v. Dickson, 310 F.2d 30 (9th Cir. 1962)
- Yogurt Master, Inc. v. Wirtz, 372 U.S. 978 (U.S. 1963)
- Kruchten v. Eyman, 406 F.2d 304 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Bennie Ray Smith v. United States, 446 F.2d 1117 (9th Cir. 1971)
- Vargas v. United States, 455 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1972)
- In re Reynolds, 408 U.S. 934 (U.S. 1972)
- Janovic v. Eyman, 408 U.S. 934 (U.S. 1972)
- Hayward v. Stone, 496 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1974)
- Leblanc v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 431 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1970)