Hayes v. Boslow
| Decision Date | 28 July 1964 |
| Docket Number | 9245,9463,9507,9449.,9461,No. 9174,9174 |
| Citation | 336 F.2d 31 |
| Parties | Robert N. HAYES, Jr., Appellant, v. Harold M. BOSLOW, M.D., Director, Patuxent Institution, Appellee. Gene David WEDDLE, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, PATUXENT INSTITUTE and State of Maryland, Appellees. Charles C. COFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND, PATUXENT INSTITUTION, Appellee. Charles Mason TIPPETT, Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND, and Director of Patuxent Institution, Appellees. Charles M. CRAIG, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND, Director of Patuxent Institution, Appellees. William R. MONROE, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the PATUXENT INSTITUTION, and State of Maryland, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, for appellees.
Before BOREMAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.
The six petitioners herein have filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus alleging their detention in Patuxent Institution in violation of rights secured them under the Constitution of the United States. In two instances, Monroe v. Director, No. 9449, and Hayes v. Boslow, No. 9174, the district court required the state to file a return and reached a decision on the legal issues involved. In all six cases the relief sought was denied. Since the cases were all decided prior to our decision in Sas v. State of Maryland, 334 F.2d 506 (4 Cir. 1964), we deem it expedient to remand all six. In Sas we asked the court to consider the constitutionality of the Maryland Defective Delinquent Act (Code 1957, Art. 31 B, § 1 et seq.) as it was in fact applied to the several petitioners therein in the light of our opinion. Since the Monroe and Hayes decisions herein decide points of law which the court may wish to reconsider in the light of Sas, and since the other petitions may raise some non-frivolous issues of fact or issues of law pertinent to that inquiry, we remand all in order that the court may have these applications of the Act before it when it considers the Sas petitions.
Although it appears that several of the petitioners have failed to exhaust available state remedies, we concur in the conclusion of Judge Winter in Monroe v. Director, No. 9449, that a petitioner should not be required to pursue state remedies when the exact constitutional point being raised has been decided adversely to his contention by the Maryland Court of Appeals. Accord, Evans v. Cunningham, 335 F.2d 491 (4 Cir. 1964).
Remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Thomas
...Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672, 68 S.Ct. 1270, 92 L. Ed. 1647 (1948). 37 Hill v. Beto, 390 F.2d 640, 641 (C.A.5, 1968). 38 Hayes v. Boslow, 336 F.2d 31, 32 (C.A. 4, 1964); Evans v. Cunningham, 335 F.2d 491, 493-494 (C.A.4, 39 Morgan v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 222 So.2d 820 (1969)......
-
Application of DeToro, Civ. A. No. 16804.
...do so. The interests of comity are not furthered by futile proceedings which merely delay resort to this court. See, e. g., Hayes v. Boslow, 336 F.2d 31 (4 Cir. 1964); Evans v. Cunningham, 335 F.2d 491 (4 Cir. 1964). Therefore, this court must determine the correctness of petitioner's prima......
-
Davis v. Director, Patuxent Inst.
...are civil in nature. See Bush v. Director, 22 Md.App. 353, 360, n. 7, 324 A.2d 162 (1974).4 On appeal, sub nom, Hayes v. Boslow, 336 F.2d 31 (4th Cir. 1964), Monroe was remanded for consideration in light of Sas v. Maryland, 334 F.2d 506 (4th Cir. 1964). Certiorari was denied by the Supreme......
-
Baynor v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction
...be ineffective, and exhaustion should therefore not be required. See Evans v. Cunningham, 335 F.2d 491 (4th Cir. 1964); Hayes v. Boslow, 336 F.2d 31 (4th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1039, 87 S.Ct. 1496, 18 L.Ed.2d 607 (1967); Rowe v. Peyton, 383 F.2d 709 (4th Cir. In the Craig case, ......