SMITH
v.
MISSISSIPPI
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.
Smith was convicted of rape and sentenced to death in Mississippi, and the Supreme Court granted his petition for certiorari to review alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations. The Court dismissed the writ as improvidently granted because the record was insufficient to decide his constitutional claims, but without prejudice, allowing him to pursue federal habeas corpus relief after exhausting state remedies.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The petitioner was convicted of rape by a jury in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Mississippi, and sentenced to death. The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi. - Miss. —, 139 So. 2d 857. We granted petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in jorma pauperis, and his petition for certiorari which presented several claims of alleged denial of rights secured to him by the Fourteenth Amendment. 371 U. S. 939! After oral argument and study of the record, we have reached the conclusion that the record is not sufficient to permit decision of his constitutional claims. The writ kiherefore dismissed as improvidently granted, with out prejudice to an application for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U. S. C. § 2241 after exhaustion of any state remedies still open to him. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254; Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 435.
Upon the effective date of our action today, the stay of execution granted October 5, 1962, by Mr. Justice Black expires of its own terms. We see no reason, however, to continue the stay in effect. Although the Mississippi Supreme Court, see —r Miss. —, 145 So. 2d 688, reserved to the State the right, upon this Court’s disposition of the writ of certiorari, to apply for an order fixing a new execution date, we assume that that court will not act on application of the State without affording petitioner an opportunity to pursue with due diligence any available state remedies and, if necessary, the remedy in federal habeas corpus.
Writ dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Massachusetts v. Painten, 389 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1968)…ave reached the conclusion that the record is not sufficiently clear and specific to permit decision of the important constitutional questions involved in this case. The writ is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted. Cf. Smith v. Mississippi, 373 U. S. 238 (1963). Dismissed. 252 F. Supp. 851 (D. C. Mass. 1966). 368 F. 2d 142 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1966). 386 U. S. 931 (1967).…
-
Darden v. Wainwright, 513 F. Supp. 947 (M.D. Fla. 1981)…ion to preclude relitigation of that issue in collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless the order discharging the writ expressly preserved the question. See, for example, Smith v. Mississippi, 373 U.S. 238, 239, 83 S.Ct. 1265, 1266, 10 L.Ed.2d 321 (1963), in which the order discharging a writ previously granted specifically provided that such disposition was “without prejudice to an application for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after exhaustion of any state remedies stil…1 / 2
-
Johnson v. Massachusetts, 390 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1968)…ecord, we have reached the conclusion that the record relevant to the constitutional claims now asserted is insufficient to permit decision of those claims.* The writ is there [*512] fore dismissed as improvidently granted. Cf. Smith v. Mississippi, 373 U. S. 238; Massachusetts v. Painten, 389 U. S. 560. It is so ordered. * Petitioner’s claim on voir dire was that his confession was beaten out of him by police. The trial judge found as a fact that it was not. At the trial itself petitioner did not attac…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- FAY v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1963)
- Local No. 207 v. Perko, 371 U.S. 939 (U.S. 1962)
- United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., Inc., 371 U.S. 939 (U.S. 1962)