*1 KILEY FAIRCHILD, Cirсuit KILEY, Judge. court filed its
opinion
previous appeal
petitioner,
“deny-
reversing
court’s order
the distriсt
ing
motion to
reconsider”
[the]
habeas
court’s dismissal
corpus
(7th
petition.
Upon
repre-
pointed
had also
—who
appeal
sented
—entered
Attor-
into
with the State’s
nеy General,
of Bald-
consent
without
ridge.
stipulation,
testi-
“oral
Under the
unnecessary
mony”
was waived
presented upon
state
a 1954
issues were
Proceedings,
post-conviction Report of
state
affidavit
copy
Baldridge case,
certified
the 1941
the criminal docket of
pleadings,
file in
trial
briefs
and the
together with whatever
judge deemed
evidence
“adequate
necessary
appropriatе
hearing.”
*2
425
generously. However,
stipulated evidence
tions
we
the basis of the
well
again
hearing
stipulа-
the diffi-
on
think
based
the
noted
the
Baldridge
inadequate
deciding
tion,
to,
culty
an
was
unconsented
is
by
comрliance
represented
when convicted
with the mandate
1965, remanding
April 7,
is
order.
in 1941. This
because
cоurt’s
and sentenced
record,
“impor-
the state
In our
the resolution of the
view
the state court’s
Baldridge’s
credibility
support
prosecutor’s,
claim
based
tant
issue” on a
decision
guilty
pleaded
issue
and was sentenced
on the
leaves the
clouded
that he
Coppin-
uncertainty.
impelled
April 22, 1941,
We arе
there-
on
whereas John
with
judg-
attorney appointed
represent
ger,
court’s
to
fore to revеrse the district
the
hearing.
again
Baldridge,
states,
support
from his
ment and
with
diary,
he
in court
office
that
was
hearing
plenary
at
a
the ear-
We direct
April 22, 1941,
rep-
but was
“important
possible
upon the
liest
time
Bаldridge
April
the
resented
on
24 when
respondent
pro-
to
ordered
issue” with
guilty plea
acceptеd and the sentence
was
any
transcript of the 1941
duce
available
Furthermore,
imposed.
state court
the
Baldridge pleaded,
proceeding at which
prosecutor’s
“office
records
and stаte
together
sentenced,
was
only pro-
24
file” show that
the
mittimus, penitentiary
records or
with
ceeding
Baldridge
in
case was the
the
light
any
shed
other records which could
prosequi disposal
nolle
of othеr
indict-
issue;
respondent
upon
ordered
the
with
against Baldridge
agree-
under an
ments
hearing
producе
at the
the
to
as a witness
April 22 between the
ment made before
Baldridge
prosecutor of the
1941 stаte
appointed
any
witness
case and
other
available
testimony
on the
could be material
whose
court-appointed
issue;
a
with
thought
“impor-
The district court
the
op-
Baldridge;
representing
a full
with
tant
issue” was not
the actual date of
testify
Baldridge
portunity
to
and is-
to
Baldridge
plea and sentenсe but whether
directing
any necessary order
suance of
by
plea
represented
counsel when
the
court;
produced
and with
in
that he be
was entered and he was sentenced. The
Baldridge
subpoena
opportunity
to
to
court then
the
1954
credited
affidavit and
any
Pappas and
Mable
as witness
testimony
post-conviction proceeding
is
whose
available witness
attorney Coppinger and disсredited the
In view
material on the issue.
deemed
allegations
Baldridge’s petition
in
because
apparent
far of the state
failure
committing
he had
ar-
been convicted of
con-
the issue
cоurt records to determine
corpus petition
in
son
1958. The habeas
Baldridge
clusively,
be absolved of
shаll
appealed
denied
has
any expense
with the hear-
in connection
pro se.
ing.
appealed from
considering
question
The district court order
areWe
here the
1
and the cause is remаnded
“by
pervasive”
is reversed
of denial of
far the most
hearing
plenary
right
as directed.
constitutional
a defendant
trial,
criminal
and if
was not
Judge
pleaded
counsel when he
(concurring).
sentenced,
аnd was
he has been un-
justly
again
imprisoned.
foregoing
We are
“not
this court
The
belatedly
requirements
jus-
way
рractical
satisfied”
the
to
constitutes
give
tice have been met. This is not to be read
benefits
reflecting
Wainwright,
upon
either
v.
decision. Gideon
Gideon
counsel,
court-appointed
792,
this man since requires full au-
inconsistencies
thority plenary court in the of the district that at now directed to end at
this late date it be determined actually sentenced he was
the time he was In appear it
state of the record does represented.
he was ex rel. Edward
UNITED STATES SUAREZ, Appellant, (successor to
Hon. Harold W. FOLLETTE Fay), Edward of Green Hon. M. Warden Stormville, York, Prison, Haven New
No. Docket 29822. Court of
United States Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 1966.
Decided Jan. Goldin, City,
Harrison J. New York Barry Mahoney, Atty. Asst. Gen. (Louis Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., York, Hirsho- New Samuel witz, Atty. Gen., counsel)^ First WATERMAN, MOORE and KAUFMAN, PER CURIAM: Suarez, Edward jury possession burglary York tools (New Law, McKinney’s York Penal Con- sol.Laws, 40, 408), possession c. of nar- §