James Charles ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit1972-11-27No. No. 72-2209

469 F.2d 1076

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded because the district court failed to comply with the appellate mandate to determine whether all state remedies had been exhausted before considering federal habeas relief, and improperly attempted to mandate action by a state court.

James Charles Anderson, a Texas state prisoner serving a life sentence for murder, filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction and guilty plea. He initially alleged he was not taken before a magistrate or advised of his rights, and that his plea was coerced. After federal counsel was appointed, an amended petition added claims that Anderson was denied counsel during his confession and lacked effective assistance at trial. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice, finding these new claims had not been exhausted in state court proceedings.

On appeal, Anderson filed evidence showing he had subsequently raised these unexhausted issues in state court. The appellate court withdrew its earlier affirmance and remanded for the district court to determine whether state remedies had been fully exhausted. On remand, however, the district court made findings without conducting an evidentiary hearing or determining the status of Anderson's pending state petitions. The district court then exceeded its authority by ordering the state trial court to appoint counsel and hold a hearing—a directive that violated principles limiting federal mandamus power over state courts.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Exhaustion of state remedies in federal habeas corpus proceedings
Federal court authority to mandate state court proceedings
Effective assistance of counsel claims in habeas review
Scope of appellate remand instructions to district court

Procedural posture

A federal habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies; after the petitioner filed the unexhausted claims in state court, the appellate court remanded for determination of exhaustion status, but the district court failed to make that determination and instead ordered state court action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case returned to this Court after having been remanded to the district court for a determination of whether state remedies have been exhausted. Anderson v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1972, 456 F.2d 1303.

The district court having failed to make that determination, we once again remand.

Appellant is a Texas state convict serving a life sentence for murder with malice. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in Anderson v. State, Tex.Cr.App.1965, 391 S.W.2d 732. A petition for habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.07, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.C.Crim.P., was denied by the trial court without a hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals also denied relief without a written opinion. Appellant then filed his habeas petition in the court below alleging that upon arrest he was not taken before a magistrate and apprised of his rights, and that his guilty plea was coerced. The district court appointed counsel who filed an amended petition alleging as additional grounds for relief that applicant was denied counsel at the time he made his confession and that he was without effective assistance of counsel at his trial. At a pretrial conference it was brought out that these latter allegations had not been presented to any state court. On that basis, the district court dismissed the petition without prejudice, with leave to reapply after exhausting state remedies.

On appeal this Court intially affirmed the judgment below. However, appellant filed papers in this Court showing that he had filed a new habeas petition in the state trial and appellate courts raising those issues concerning counsel not previously presented to state courts. Treating the filing of those papers as a petition for a rehearing this Court withdrew its earlier opinion and substituted an order remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether state remedies had been exhausted, Anderson v. Beto, supra.

On remand, the district court found, without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing or further pleadings, that the issue concerning ineffective counsel had previously been presented to the state courts, but that relief had been denied without an evidentiary hearing. The district court ordered the state trial court to appoint counsel for appellant and to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issues involving counsel.

The district court has failed to follow the mandate of this Court. The court below made no inquiry into the status of appellant’s petitions allegedly pending in the state court and failed to determine whether state remedies had been exhausted as to all issues. Instead the court, exceeding its authority, ordered the state to hold an evidentiary hearing. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651 empowers a federal court to mandamus a state court only in aid of its own jurisdiction. Lamar v. 118th Judicial District Court of Texas, 5th Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 383, 384; Haggard v. State of Tennessee, 5th Cir. 1970, 421 F.2d 1384; Clark v. State of Washington, 9th Cir. 1966, 366 F.2d 678. Such is not the case here.

The district court having failed to follow the directions on remand, the judgment below is vacated and the cause once again remanded for compliance with this Court’s earlier mandate.

Vacated and remanded.