WHITLEY

v.

STEINER, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• Thomas v. Cunningham, 313 F.2d 934 (4th Cir. 1963)
  …e “forfeiture” or “abortive state proceeding” problem discussed in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 482-487, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953), and more recently by this court in Whitley v. Steiner, 293 F. 2d 895, 897-900 (4th Cir., 1961), cert, denied 368 U.S. 980, 82 S.Ct. 476, 7 L.Ed.2d 521 (1962). See also Reitz, “Federal Habeas Corpus: Impact of an Abortive State Proceeding,” 74 Harv.L.Rev. 1315 (1961). But the rule is not unyielding and “federal habeas corpus is allowed where time has expired without app…
• Hammond v. United States, 309 F.2d 935 (4th Cir. 1962)
  …317 U.S. 213, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214 (1942); Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28, 78 S.Ct. 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 9 (1957); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959); Whitley v. Steiner, 293 F. 2d 895, 896 (4 Cir.1961), cert. den. 368 U.S. 980, 82 S.Ct. 476, 7 L.Ed.2d 521 (1962); Davis v. Smyth, 155 F. 2d 3 (4 Cir.1946). In this case, however, even with due regard to the fact that the motion was drafted by someone other than an attorney,1 we do not believe that the appellant’s allegation…