Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Robert E. Chavez v. Felix Rodriguez, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, 540 F.2d 500, 10th Cir. (1976)
Robert E. Chavez v. Felix Rodriguez, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, 540 F.2d 500, 10th Cir. (1976)
Robert E. Chavez v. Felix Rodriguez, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, 540 F.2d 500, 10th Cir. (1976)
2d 500
Chavez is appealing denial of habeas corpus relief by the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico. We affirm.
Police officers investigating a shop lifting incident had been furnished the
description and license plate number of the car driven by the alleged shop lifter.
Ownership of this car was traced to a Mr. Brooks. The officers proceeded to
Brooks' place of business where they found both the automobile and Brooks.
Upon being informed of the purpose for the police officers' presence, Brooks
responded that he had loaned the car to Mr. Chavez, the appellant here, who
was upstairs in a room furnished to him by Brooks. The two officers and
Brooks proceeded to Chavez' room where Brooks knocked at the door and
asked whether Chavez was in the room. Chavez responded with "Yes. Come on
in," or something similar. Brooks and the two officers then entered the room
where the officers observed heroin paraphernalia and suspicious activity on the
part of Chavez. The officers also observed a bulge, the approximate size and
shape of a pocket knife, in Chavez' pants pocket. They then frisked Chavez,
extracted the "bulge" from Chavez' pocket, and determined it to be heroin.
Chavez was then arrested. This search is the subject of these proceedings.
4
Prior to trial, counsel for Chavez filed a motion to suppress admission of the
heroin into evidence on the ground that it resulted from an illegal search. A
hearing was conducted, after which the motion was denied. The suppression
motion was renewed numerous times throughout the trial. The legality of this
search and seizure was the sole issue discussed by the New Mexico Court of
Appeals in Chavez' direct appeal. State v. Chavez, supra.
As stated, Chavez is continuing his attack on the search and seizure in the
instant habeas corpus proceedings. The district court based denial of habeas
corpus relief, as did the state courts, on the fact that Chavez had given
permission for entry into the room. In bringing the instant appeal Chavez raises
two issues: 1) the search and seizure violated his constitutional rights; and 2)
the district court erred in denying the 2254 petition without a hearing.
This appeal need not be decided on its merits. The United States Supreme
Court, on July 6, 1976, decided W. T. Stone, Warden v. Lloyd Charles Powell,
--- U.S. ----, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d --- (1976) holding that ". . . where the
State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth
Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus
relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search and
seizure was introduced at his trial." Id. at 3052. The court went on to state that
". . . a federal court need not apply the exclusionary rule on habeas review of a
Fourth Amendment claim absent a showing that the state prisoner was denied
an opportunity for a full and fair litigation of that claim at trial and on direct
review." Id. at 3052, note 37. Because Chavez alleges in these proceedings that
his conviction was based upon evidence which resulted from an illegal search
and seizure, we must determine whether Stone v. Powell is applicable and, if
so, whether Chavez was afforded an opportunity for full and fair litigation of
his claim.
7
This leaves only the determination of whether the state of New Mexico
provided Chavez an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his Fourth
Amendment claim. As already discussed, Chavez filed a pre-trial motion to
suppress which the state court denied after conducting a hearing. We have
reviewed the state court transcript and find that this hearing was full and
adequate. The state Court of Appeals then considered Chavez' search and
seizure claims in his direct appeal. The dictates of Stone v. Powell have thus
been satisfied and denial of habeas corpus relief must be affirmed.
Upon docketing, the parties were notified that we were considering summarily
affirming this appeal without oral argument. Counsel for Chavez responded
with a memorandum opposing summary action. Having carefully considered
this memorandum, and the files and records in this case, we are now convinced
that habeas corpus relief was properly denied.
10