Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Raymond R. Latham v. Arnold J. Hopkins, Commissioner, Department of Corrections Joseph J. Curran, Attorney General, State of Maryland, 900 F.2d 253, 4th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief to Raymond Latham. The court remanded the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and voluntariness of Latham's guilty plea because the district court did not have key records from the state court proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Latham's sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment or violate due process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Raymond R. Latham v. Arnold J. Hopkins, Commissioner, Department of Corrections Joseph J. Curran, Attorney General, State of Maryland, 900 F.2d 253, 4th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    49 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief to Raymond Latham. The court remanded the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and voluntariness of Latham's guilty plea because the district court did not have key records from the state court proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Latham's sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment or violate due process.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1990-02-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 900 F.2d 253 Docket: 89-6582

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief to Raymond Latham. The court remanded the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and voluntariness of Latham's guilty plea because the district court did not have key records from the state court proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Latham's sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment or violate due process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    49 views3 pages

    Raymond R. Latham v. Arnold J. Hopkins, Commissioner, Department of Corrections Joseph J. Curran, Attorney General, State of Maryland, 900 F.2d 253, 4th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief to Raymond Latham. The court remanded the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and voluntariness of Latham's guilty plea because the district court did not have key records from the state court proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Latham's sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment or violate due process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    900 F.

    2d 253
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Raymond R. LATHAM, Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    Arnold J. HOPKINS, Commissioner, Department of
    Corrections;
    Joseph J. Curran, Attorney General, State of
    Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 89-6582.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: July 31, 1989.
    Decided: Feb. 2, 1990.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
    at Baltimore. Paul V. Niemeyer, District Judge. (C/A No. 87-2785-PN)
    Raymond R. Latham, appellant pro se.
    John Joseph Curran, Jr., Patricia DuVall Storch, Valerie Johnson Smith,
    Office of the Attorney General, for appellees.
    D.Md.
    AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED.
    Before K.K. HALL, SPROUSE and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Raymond R. Latham seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas
    1

    corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Latham alleged that he had
    received ineffective assistance of counsel resulting in the entry of an
    involuntary guilty plea, that the plea agreement was violated, and that his
    sentence was imposed in violation of due process and amounts to cruel and
    unusual punishment. We affirm in part and remand in part.

    Latham's ineffective counsel argument is based on the following allegations:


    his attorney agreed to interview the alleged victims, three boys between ages 11
    and 13, and Latham's "star witness," his daughter, but then failed to do so; such
    interviews would have revealed that the enforcement officers had coerced the
    boys into giving the statements against Latham; not having that information
    available at the time of his hearing, Latham chose to enter a guilty plea rather
    than subject the already-traumatized children to the further trauma of testifying
    and being cross-examined;* therefore his plea was involuntary. Latham also
    alleges that he was led to believe his attorney had secured an agreement which
    would give him a sentence concurrent with a prior sentence, that as there was
    no such agreement his plea was involuntary, and that his attorney failed to
    advise him that he could ask to withdraw his plea when he learned that a
    consecutive sentence was about to be imposed. These issues were the subject of
    a post-conviction hearing in state court and were found there to have no merit.
    The record in this case does not contain a copy of the plea agreement or
    transcripts of the guilty plea hearing or the post-conviction hearing (except for
    the judge's oral opinion). Without these records from the state court, the district
    court could not determine whether the factual findings of the state court are
    supported by the record as required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 and Townsend v.
    Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 313 (1963). See also Hill v. Wyrick, 570 F.2d 748, 752 (8th
    Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 921 (1978) (where habeas petitioner raises
    constitutional claim federal court may not rely on state court's finding of fact
    unless federal court has independently examined transcript of state court
    proceedings; Turner v. Chavez, 586 F.2d 111-112 (9th Cir.1978) (federal court
    must make determination as to sufficiency of state court findings from
    independent review of state records).

    Moreover, without these state records, the district court could not make an
    independent determination of the effectiveness of Latham's representation,
    Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (attorney effectiveness a mixed
    question of law and fact reviewable by federal court), and the voluntariness of
    his guilty plea. Under Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985), a guilty plea
    will not stand if it is made only because of an attorney's unprofessional errors.
    We therefore vacate the district court's judgment on these issues and remand so
    that the district court may supplement the record with the state court records
    and conduct further proceedings. We deny Latham's motion for production of

    the post-conviction transcript in this court because it is more properly produced


    in the district court in the first instance.
    4

    We find that Latham's sentence is within the statutory limits and does not
    constitute cruel and unusual punishment and that due process was not violated
    when the sentencing judge heard evidence of other crimes for which Latham
    had been indicted. United States v. Legrano, 659 F.2d 17 (4th Cir.1981). We
    affirm the judgment of the district court on these issues.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process. A certificate of probable cause to appeal is granted.

    AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED.

    Cf. Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319 (1983)

    You might also like