WOOLSEY
v.
BEST, WARDEN

U.S. | 1936-10-12
No. 256
299 U.S. 1 Supreme Court of the United States (1936) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 81 L. Ed. 3 · 57 S. Ct. 2 · SCDB 1936-001 · 1936 U.S. LEXIS 1
Cited by 94 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A Colorado state prisoner sought federal habeas corpus relief after his conviction for violating a Colorado statute was affirmed by the state supreme court, but the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error to collaterally attack a final judgment of conviction when the state court had jurisdiction and any federal constitutional questions could have been raised on direct appeal.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Appellant brought this proceeding in the Supreme Court of Colorado to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied without opinion. It appears that appellant was held pursuant to conviction for violation of .§ 2676 C. L. 1921, being § 40, c. 44, Session Laws 1913, of the laws of Colorado (see also § 2740 C. L. 1921, being § 85, c. 44 of Session Laws of 1913), the judgment of conviction having been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. Woolsey v. People, 98 Colo. 62; 53 P. (2d) 596.

It is well established that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error. This is the rule in Colorado as well as -in this Court. The judgment of conviction was not subject to collateral attack. People ex rel. Burchinell v. District Court, 22 Colo. 422; 45 Pac. 402; Martin v. District Court, 37 Colo. 110, 115; 86 Pac. 82; Chemgas v. Tynan, 51 Colo. 35; 116 Pac. 1045; In re Arakawa, 78 Colo. 193, 196; 240 Pac. 940; In re Nottingham, 84 Colo. 123, 128; 268 Pac.

587. Compare Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442; Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U. S. 333; Craig v. Hecht, 263 U. S. 255, 277; Knewel v. Egan, 268 U. S. 442, 445, 446; Cox v. Colorado, 282 U. S.

807. It is apparent from the record submitted that the state court had jurisdiction to try the appellant for violation of the statute in question and that any federal question properly raised as to the validity of the statute could have been heard and determined on appeal to this Court from the final judgment in that action. The Supreme Court of the State was not required by the Federal Constitution to entertain such questions on the subsequent petition for habeas corpus, and it does not appear that its denial of the petition did not rest upon an adequate non-federal ground. Lynch v. New York, 293 U. S. 52, and cases there cited. The appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (28 total)

  • Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938)
    …, 412. Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 301 U. S. 292, 307. Hack v. State, 141 Wis. 346, 351; 124 N. W. 492. Cf., Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193; Knewal v. Egan, 268 U. S. 442; Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442. Woolsey v. Best, 299 U. S. 1, 2. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 327. In re Mayfield, 141 U. S. 107, 116; Cuddy, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 280. 28 U. S. C., ch. 14, § 451, et seq. Frank v. Mangum, supra, 330, 331; cf., Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86; Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S…
  • Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1944)
    …ably adheres to it in cases from state courts, see Brandéis, J. concurring in Whitney v. California, supra, 380, and it could hardly be maintained that it is beyond legislative power to make the rule inflexible in all cases. Compare Woolsey v. Best, 299 U. S. 1 with Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371. For more than fifty years it has been a penal offense for shippers and interstate rail carriers to fail to observe the duly filed tariffs fixing freight rates—including, since 1906, rates prescribed by the Comm…
  • House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1945)
    …118. But that rule is inapplicable where, as here, the basis of the state court decision is that the particular remedy sought is not one allowed by state law, for in such a case this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decision. Woolsey v. Best, 299 U. S. 1, 2; New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson, 318 U. S. 688, 690; Williams v. Kaiser, supra, 473, 476-479. The decision of the district court is thus not supported by the grounds assigned for it, and should have been reversed by the court of appeals. And…

Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw