TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James Cumbo v. Frank A. Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison

James CUMBO, Appellee, v. Frank A. EYMAN, Warden, Arizona State Prison, Appellant

Cumbo v. Frank A. Eyman,, Ariz. State Prison, 409 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 7, 1969
Docket
No. 23097
Judges
Hamley, Merrill, Carter
Citations
409 F.2d 4001969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12954

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

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 re-sentenced. The warden appeals.

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.

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.

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

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1982: 11986: 11991: 12007: 12025: 119822026peak 1982 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Raymond Carl Skeet665 F.2d 983 (9th Cir. 1982)
  2. Moloi v. Riley762 F. Supp. 36 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)
  3. Boulware v. Ollison504 F. Supp. 2d 901 (C.D. Cal. 2007)
  4. Earl O. McFall v. John D. Rees, Warden786 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1986)
  5. Gittens v. Lennard JohnsonNo. 1:22-cv-02704 (D. Maryland July 14, 2025)

Most recent

  1. Gittens v. Lennard JohnsonNo. 1:22-cv-02704 (D. Maryland July 14, 2025)
  2. Boulware v. Ollison504 F. Supp. 2d 901 (C.D. Cal. 2007)
  3. Moloi v. Riley762 F. Supp. 36 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)
  4. Earl O. McFall v. John D. Rees, Warden786 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1986)
  5. United States v. Raymond Carl Skeet665 F.2d 983 (9th Cir. 1982)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968) 1,437
State v. Cumbo, 451 P.2d 333 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969) 20

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list