Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

409 F.2d 400

Docket No. 23097.

Cumbo v. Eyman

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1969-04-07

2 counsel of record

Relies on Carafas v. J · 9 Ariz. App. 253 - State v. Cumbo

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1969-04-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2016 · most notably Simpson v. United States (1978), 125 Wash. 2d 707 - State v. Byrd (1995)

36 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

290196919701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Narval C. Jesperson (argued), Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Thomas M. Tuggle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellant.

Pano Stephens (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before HAMLEY, MERRILL and CARTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

In this habeas corpus proceeding brought in the district court by James Cumbo, an inmate of Arizona State Prison, the district court declared void, and vacated, the sentence imposed by the state trial court. The district court ordered Cumbo remanded to the custody of the Attorney General of the State of Arizona so that Cumbo could be resentenced. The warden appeals.

¶2

Apparently the district court was not made aware of the fact that Cumbo had not exhausted his state remedies. Cumbo's appeal from his state conviction was then pending in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One. State v. Cumbo, 451 P.2d 333. On March 4, 1969, while this appeal was pending, that court reversed Cumbo's conviction. It is not now known whether Cumbo will be retried by the State of Arizona or, if retried, whether he will again be convicted or, if again convicted, whether the sentence imposed will be subject to the same challenge which led the district court to grant relief in this habeas proceeding.

¶3

Under these circumstances this habeas proceeding has been rendered moot. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554, relied upon by Cumbo, does not call for a different result. In Carafas it was held that satisfaction of the sentence did not moot a pending habeas proceeding because there may be continuing burdens and disabilities resulting from the conviction. Here, however, the conviction has been set aside and no continuing burdens and disabilities can flow therefrom.

¶4

The order under review is set aside and the cause is remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss the proceeding as moot.

/409/f2d/400 · .json · Public domain