Banks v. California, 670
| Decision Date | 16 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 670,670 |
| Citation | 395 U.S. 708,23 L.Ed.2d 653,89 S.Ct. 1901 |
| Parties | Fred BANKS, Petitioner, v. State of CALIFORNIA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Klitgaard, San Francisco, for petitioner.
Edward P. O'Brien, San Francisco, for respondent.
Petitioner did not ask the Supreme Court of California to review the judgment entered by the Court of Appeal in this case. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeal is not a '(f)inal judgment * * * rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had * * *.' 28 U.S.C. § 1257, and we lack jurisdiction to review it. The writ of certiorari is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Writ dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
8 cases
- Smith v. General Motors Corp.
-
Riddle v. Kemna
...to consider a petition for certiorari from Riddle after the court of appeals affirmed his conviction. See Banks v. California, 395 U.S. 708, 89 S.Ct. 1901, 23 L.Ed.2d 653 (1969). This court holds that, because the United States Supreme Court could not have reviewed Riddle's direct appeal, "......
-
Wilson v. Jones
... ... at p. 102, ¶ 3. The United States relies principally on Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983) ("when a court decides upon a rule ... ...
-
Ben-Yah v. Norris
...to consider a petition for certiorari from Riddle after the court of appeals affirmed his conviction. See Banks v. California, 395 U.S. 708, 89 S.Ct. 1901, 23 L.Ed.2d 653 (1969). Riddle, 523 F.3d at 855. Thus, "because the United States Supreme Court could not have reviewed [petitioner's] d......
Request a trial to view additional results