MATTOX
v.
SACKS, WARDEN
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 petitioner convicted in Ohio state court of assault with intent to kill was denied state remedies for challenging his conviction on federal constitutional grounds, including alleged denial of counsel and violation of due process rights. The Supreme Court denied certiorari but held that because no adequate state remedy remained available, the petitioner could proceed directly to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to seek habeas corpus relief, and his allegations of constitutional violation would entitle him to a hearing if proven.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.,
Petitioner was convicted in an Ohio state court of assault with intent to kill and of cutting with intent to kill, wound or maim the same person. He immediately sought a writ of habeas corpus which was denied on the ground that appeal was the proper remedy. He then attempted to appeal, but this was denied as out of time and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed this denial. He unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus twice more, the latest petition being to the Supreme Court of Ohio and alleging, among other matters, a denial of counsel at his trial and a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the petition, holding that habeas corpus was not a substitute for appeal and was not available to remedy the defects alleged by petitioner. Petitioner now seeks our writ of certiorari to review that ruling. The petition for certiorari must be denied. The decision below and the several prior actions in the Ohio courts indicate that petitioner is without a state remedy to challenge his conviction upon the federal constitutional grounds asserted. In these circumstances, Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 208, is not applicable and a prisoner may, without first seeking certiorari here, file his application for habeas corpus in the appropriate United States District Court. 28 U. S. C. § 2254. Massey v. Moore, 348 U. S. 105; Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U. S. 519. Petitioner’s allegations, if true, would present serious questions under the Fourteenth Amendment, and those allegations would therefore entitle him to a hearing. Massey v. Moore, supra; Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. Cunningham, 313 F.2d 934 (4th Cir. 1963)…sary to decide other points raised before us. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the District Court must be reversed and the case remanded for a hearing. Reversed and remanded. . For recent applications of the exceptions, see Mattox v. Sacks, 369 U.S. 656, 82 S.Ct. 992, 8 L.Ed.2d 178 (1962); Player v. Steiner, 292 F. 2d 1 (4th Cir., 1961); United States ex rel. Noia v. Fay, 300 F. 2d 345 (2d Cir., 1962); cf., Clark v. Warden, 199 F.Supp. 29 (D.Md.l961). . In 4 Blackstone’s Commentaries 24, it is sai…
-
Walker v. Peppersack, 316 F.2d 119 (4th Cir. 1963)…be the basis for its denial of habeas. Since that court and the Court of Appeals considered petitioner’s application on the merits, we are not inclined at this late date to consider the procedural defect a fatal error.” In Mattox v. Sacks, Warden, 369 U.S. 656, 82 S.Ct. 992, 8 L.Ed.2d 178 (1962), a prisoner of the State of Ohio had been convicted of a felony. Immediately following his conviction he sought a writ of habeas corpus which was denied on the ground that appeal was the proper remedy. He then att…1 / 3
-
Allen v. Bannan, 370 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1962)…record in this case as well as an examination of the record certified to this Court by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Michigan in Allen v. Michigan, 364 U. S. 934, we conclude that the petitioner has exhausted state remedies. Cf. Mattox v. Sacks, 369 U. S. 656. Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.…
Authorities Cited
- Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1950)
- Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1952)
- Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116 (U.S. 1956)
- Massey v. Moore, 348 U.S. 105 (U.S. 1954)