192 F.2d 477 (4th Cir. 1951), 6331, Speller v. Allen
|Docket Nº:||6331, 6332.|
|Citation:||192 F.2d 477|
|Party Name:||SPELLER v. ALLEN, Warden. BROWN v. ALLEN, Warden.|
|Case Date:||November 05, 1951|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
Argued Oct. 12, 1951.
Herman L. Taylor, Raleigh, N.C. (C. J. Gates, Durham N.C., on the brief), for appellant, Raleigh Speller.
Hosea V. Price, Winston-Salem, N.C. (Herman L. Taylor, Raleigh, N.C., on brief), for appellant, Clyde Brown.
E. O. Brogden, Jr., Raleigh, N.C., Atty. for State Highway and Public Works Commission of North Carolina.
R. Brookes Peters, Jr., Gen. Counsel of State Highway & Public Works Commission of North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C. (Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen. of North Carolina, or briefs) for appellee, Robert A. Allen.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
These are appeals from denials of writs of habeas corpus in cases in which appellants have been convicted of capital felonies and sentenced to death by North Carolina state courts. In both cases the questions raised in the petitions for habeas corpus had been raised and passed upon by the trial court, the action of the trial court had been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state and the Supreme Court of the United States had denied certiorari. 1 State v. Speller, 231 N.C. 549, 57 S.E.2d 759, certiorari denied Speller v. North Carolina, 340 U.S. 835, 71 S.Ct. 18, 95 L.Ed. 613; State v. Brown, 244 N.C. 202, 63 S.E.2d 99, certiorari denied Brown v. State of Carolina, 341 U.S. 943, 71 S.Ct. 997, 95 L.Ed. 1369. In the Speller case the court below, after granting the writ of habeas corpus and hearing evidence on the question presented and deciding that appellant's position was without merit, vacated the writ and dismissed the petition on the ground that upon the procedural history of the case the appellant was not entitled to the writ. In the Brown case the petition for the writ was denied without hearing, on the basis of its procedural history. We think that dismissal in both cases was clearly right. In view of the action of the state Supreme Court upon the identical questions presented to the court below and the denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States, the cases fall squarely within the rule that 'a federal court will not ordinarily re-examine upon writ of habeas corpus the questions thus adjudicated.' Ex parte Hawk, 321...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP