HEDGEBETH
v.
NORTH CAROLINA
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.
A North Carolina inmate sought habeas corpus relief, claiming his robbery conviction and sentence violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights, particularly his right to counsel. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ because the North Carolina Supreme Court had decided the case on an incomplete record, lacking the trial court's oral testimony, and the Court could not review a state judgment that rested on non-federal grounds; the petitioner was required to pursue his federal constitutional claims through proper North Carolina procedures or raise a new denial of due process claim if state remedies proved unavailing.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
[*807] Per Curiam.
After a conviction for robbery, petitioner sued out a writ of habeas corpus in a Superior Court of North Carolina claiming that the sentence he is serving involved a denial of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The writ was dismissed and the dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. 228 N. C. 259, 45 S. E. 2d 563. If petitioner’s allegations, with supporting affidavits, in the habeas corpus proceedings controlled the issue before us, they would establish circumstances that make the right to assistance of counsel an ingredient of the Due Process Clause. While the Supreme Court of North Carolina recognized the right of an accused to the benefit of counsel under appropriate circumstances, it held that in the proceedings on the habeas corpus the trial court had before it not merely the petitioner’s allegations but "the oral testimony of the sheriff, which was not sent up.” In short, there was before the North Carolina Supreme Court only a partial record of the proceedings in the Superior Court. In reviewing a judgment of a state court, we are bound by the record on which that judgment was based. Since the North Carolina Supreme Court went on the ground that it did not have the full record before it, we are constrained to dismiss this writ because the judgment below can rest on a non-federal ground. Petitioner’s rights under the Federal Constitution must be pursued according to the procedural requirements of North Carolina or, in default of relief by available North Carolina proceedings, by a new claim of denial of due process for want of such relief. Foster v. Illinois, 332 U. S. 134, 139.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rice v. Sioux City Mem'l Park Cemetery, Inc., 349 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1955)…v. Washington University, 316 U. S. 98; McCullough v. Kammerer Corp., 323 U. S. 327; McCarthy v. Bruner, 323 U. S. 673; White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760; Woods v. Nierstheimer, 328 U. S. 211; Phyle v. Duffy, 334 U. S. 431; Hedgebeth v. North Carolina, 334 U. S. 806; Superior Court v. Lillefloren, 335 U. S. 906; Loftus v. Illinois, 337 U. S. 935; Parker v. Los Angeles, 338 U. S. 327; Hammerstein v. Superior Court, 341 U. S. 491; Stembridge v. Georgia, 343 U. S. 541; Edelman v. California, 344 U. S. 357; Bentsen…
-
Edelman v. California, 344 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1953)…on the ground that the accompanying affidavit did not comply with the requirements of state law. Since California law determined this action, there is no federal question preserved for review in this aspect of the case. Hedgebeth v. North Carolina, 334 U. S. 806 (1948). Petitioner urges, finally, that he was deprived of notice and opportunity to have a hearing in the appellate court. A careful study of the record discloses these facts: On [*360] December 13, 1949, one day after sentence was imposed, the at…
-
Stembridge v. Georgia, 343 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1952)…adequate state grounds. Where the highest court of the state delivers no opinion and it appears that the judgment might have rested upon a non-federal ground, this Court will not take jurisdiction to review the judgment. Hedgebeth v. North Carolina, 334 U. S. 806; Woods v. Nierstheimer, 328 U. S. 211; White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760; McGoldrick v. Gulf Oil Corp., 309 U. S. 2; Woolsey v. Best, 299 U. S. 1; Lynch v. New York ex rel. Pierson, 293 U. S. 52; Cuyahoga Power Co. v. Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Foster v. Illinois, 332 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1947)