[Download] "Bassette v. Thompson" by United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Bassette v. Thompson
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Release Date : January 05, 1990
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 62 KB
Description
CHAPMAN, Circuit Judge Herbert Russell Bassette was convicted of capital murder by a jury on August 22, 1980, and was sentenced to death. He appealed his conviction without success to the Supreme Court of Virginia, see Bassett v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 844, 284 S.E.2d 844 (1981). He was also unsuccessful with his petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, Bassett v. Virginia, 456 U.S. 938, 102 S. Ct. 1996, 72 L. Ed. 2d 458 (1982). He petitioned for habeas corpus in the Virginia state courts, and after four days of hearings and the taking of extensive testimony, the Circuit Court of Henrico County denied the petition in a lengthy opinion filed March 19, 1985. The Virginia Supreme Court denied his habeas corpus appeal on March 26, 1988. On April 4, 1988, Bassette filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In his petition he raised twelve grounds for relief. He successfully moved for the appointment of counsel and an amended petition was filed August 16, 1988, setting forth 28 grounds and incorporating the claims made in the pro se petition. Certain of the claims were restated and thereafter 36 claims were presented to the district court. By order entered November 29, 1988, the district court granted summary judgment for Warden Thompson on 32 of the claims and directed additional briefing and argument on the four remaining claims. By an order entered August 13, 1989, the district court dismissed the remaining claims. In its opinion, the district court found that almost all of the claims of appellant were being asserted for the first time in the federal petition, and that these claims had not been raised on direct appeal or in the Virginia habeas corpus proceeding. The district court concluded that the claims were not barred by state procedural default rules, and then addressed the merits of the claims and found against the appellant.