PATTERSON, WARDEN, ET AL.
v.
MEDBERRY
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 denied certiorari, finding one issue premature and agreeing to deny the other.
Petitioner, a state prisoner, sought a free transcript for a 1940 appeal, alleging indigency and unconstitutional denial. The state Supreme Court had …
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 Indigency cases and more on FLexlaw
The respondent’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Memorandum of
Mr. Justice Harlan.
The denial of certiorari in this federal habeas corpus proceeding, which involves the conditional release of a state prisoner from a life sentence imposed upon him more than twenty-one years ago, justifies a brief comment. The action taken below was predicated on Colorado’s alleged unconstitutional denial to petitioner, an asserted indigent, of a free transcript of the trial proceedings in connection with a 1940 appeal from his conviction.
I find in this situation two important issues which, in my view, are or may be deserving of this Court’s plenary consideration: (1) Was the Federal District Court entitled to re-examine the determination of the Colorado Supreme Court that petitioner was not indigent at the time a trial transcript was denied him, see Medberry v. Patterson, 142 Colo. 180, 186-187, 360 P. 2d 571, 575, and to make new findings that petitioner was then indigent? See Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, at 458, 463-464, 506; (2) Does the decision of this Court in Eskridge v. Washington State Board, 357 U. S. 214, require or justify retrospective application of the rule of Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12, in circumstances where the State, without fault on its part, is now unable to supply petitioner with a trial transcript, or otherwise to satisfy the Griffin rule?
Although the first of these questions is presently ripe for consideration by this Couijt, it can be said that the second question is prematurely tendered, in that, while it is not disputed that the State for reasons beyond its control is no longer able to furnish petitioner with a trial transcript, it does not yet appear that the State is unable to furnish petitioner with other means of perfecting an adequate appeal record. In these circumstances I acquiesce in the Court’s denial of certiorari because such action will not, of course, preclude the State from showing below, if it can, that, without fault on its part, it is now unable to afford petitioner other adequate means of appeal, and from further recourse to this Court if necessary, with respect to either or both of the above questions. See Brown v. Allen, supra, at 456-457, 488-497.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, and J. F. Brauer, Assistant Attorney General, for petitioners.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaitan v. United States, 317 F.2d 494 (10th Cir. 1963)…e Court of Illinois denied the retroactive application of Griffin and the Supreme Court granted certiorari, 371 U.S. 860, 83 S.Ct. 135, 9 L.Ed.2d 98. See also memorandum of Mr. Justice Harlan on denial of certiorari in Patterson, Warden v. Medberry, 368 U.S. 839, 82 S.Ct. 59, 7 L.Ed.2d 39. We believe that until the situation is clarified Eskridge must be confined to its particular facts. . 287 U.S. 365, 53 S.Ct. 149. . 332 U.S. 174, 182, 67 S.Ct. 1588, 1593. . Two circuits have held that decisional chang…
-
United States ex rel. Victor Linkletter v. Walker, 323 F.2d 11 (5th Cir. 1963)…s have a right to crowd court dockets. Instead, this decision is based on the fact that such litigation would fail to serve the purpose for which the right was created. . Justices Harlan and Whittaker dissented. Compare Patterson v. Medberry, 1961, 368 U.S. 839, 82 S.Ct. 59, 7 L.Ed. 2d 39 (Memorandum of Harlan, J., on denial of certiorari), with Norvell v. Illinois, 1963, 373 U.S. 420, 83 S.Ct. 1366, 10 L.Ed.2d 456.…
-
Sutton v. Lash, 576 F.2d 738 (7th Cir. 1978)…he “belated appeal” to the Indiana Supreme Court afforded adequate appellate review of the Suttons’ convictions. In Medberry v. Patterson, 188 F.Supp. 557 (D.Col.1960), aff’d sub nom., Patterson v. Medberry, 290 F. 2d 275 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 839, 82 S.Ct. 59, 7 L.Ed.2d 39 (1961), similar to Macon, no notice of appeal was filed but, similar to the instant case, a request for a transcript was made. The motion was denied. Thereafter, this denial, along with an abstract and briefs, was permitte…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1953)
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956)
- Eskridge v. Wash. State Bd. of Prison Terms & Paroles, 357 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1958)