Adkins v. Smyth, 6255.
Citation | 188 F.2d 452 |
Decision Date | 10 April 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 6255.,6255. |
Parties | ADKINS v. SMYTH. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
W. A. Hall, Jr., Richmond, Va., for appellant.
Frederick T. Gray, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia (J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Virginia, on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of rape in a Virginia state court and was sentenced to 30 years in the penitentiary. He subsequently applied to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the state to be released on habeas corpus on the ground that the bill of indictment was fatally defective. This was denied and the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari. 340 U.S. 838, 71 S.Ct. 24. He then applied to the court below for a writ of habeas corpus, asking release on the same ground that had been urged upon the Supreme Court of Appeals, and from the refusal of the court below to grant the writ he brings this appeal.
The petition is entirely without merit. While the bill of indictment does not evidence good draftsmanship, we think it sufficiently charges the crime of rape to sustain the judgment and sentence against collateral attack. Aaron v. United States, 4 Cir., 188 F.2d 446; Dickerson v. United States, 4 Cir., 175 F.2d 440; Pifer v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 867; Lucas v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 865. Furthermore, it is for the state courts, not the courts of the United States, to say what is a sufficient charge of crime under state law and what judgment may properly be imposed therefor if the requirements of due process are observed; and there is nothing here to indicate a denial of due process. In view of the action of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the state upon the very question presented to the court below and the denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States, the case falls squarely within the rule that "a federal district court will not ordinarily reexamine upon writ of habeas corpus the questions thus adjudicated". Ex Parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 64 S.Ct. 448, 450, 88 L.Ed. 572; Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761; Goodwin v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 498; Stonebreaker v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 163 F.2d 498, 499. As said by this court in the case last cited:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Allen Speller v. Allen Daniels v. Allen
...Soulia v. O'Brien, D.C., 94 F.Supp. 764. McGarty v. O'Brien, D.C., 96 F.Supp. 704. Goodwin v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 498. Adkins v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 188 F.2d 452. Byars v. Swenson, 4 Cir., 192 F.2d 739. Frazier v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 196 F.2d 231. Lyle v. Eidson, 8 Cir., 197 F.2d 327. Skinner v. ......
-
Ex parte Wells
...against a federal district court entertaining the writ, e. g. See Coggins v. O'Brien, 1 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 130; Adkins v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 452. 2 Petitioner had served only half of his minimum term of five years when he committed the offense for which the death penalty was 3 ......
-
Speller v. Crawford
...Two other cases which seem to support the conclusion reached are: Stonebreaker v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 163 F.2d 498, and Adkins v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 452. Findings of Upon the evidence presented and the stipulations of counsel, the Court finds these facts: 1. Petitioner, an inmate of t......
-
Robertson v. Skeen, 392-F.
...under state law and what judgment may properly be imposed therefor if the requirements of due process are observed; * * *." Adkins v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 188 F.2d 452, 453. Nothing appears in this cause that could be deemed a denial of due process thereby ousting the sentencing court of By caref......