Owsley v. Peyton
| Decision Date | 02 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 9995.,9995. |
| Citation | 352 F.2d 804 |
| Parties | Lon O. OWSLEY, Appellant, v. C. C. PEYTON, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Eddie Cantor, Richmond, Va. (Court-assigned counsel) Cantor & Cantor, Richmond, Va., on the brief for appellant.
Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Virginia (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., of Virginia, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judge, and MARTIN, District Judge.
Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery by the Circuit Court of Rockingham County, Virginia, on January 10, 1957, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. At that trial petitioner, presenting evidence of his incompetency, asked to be committed to the state psychiatric hospital for observation or in the alternative that the County pay for private psychiatric examination. Both motions were denied. Through state habeas corpus proceedings the petitioner's claims have been denied by the highest court of the State of Virginia. Petitioner filed this action in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A plenary hearing was granted but subsequently that order was vacated.
It is conceded by the state that the petitioner is entitled to a plenary hearing.1 The only point raised by the state before the lower court is that the hearing should be held in state rather than federal court.
Though the state admits that the exact same issues as are presented now were once considered by the Virginia state courts it contends that this court's decision in Thomas v. Cunningham, 313 F.2d 934 (4 Cir. 1963), changed existing law and that therefore the question ought to be heard again by the Virginia courts. The state argues that because of the change in law the petitioner still has an unexhausted state remedy. With this contention we cannot agree. There was no change in the law of Virginia as enunciated by the Thomas case. This court in Thomas said, 313 F.2d at 938.
Even if this court could make a change in the law of the state this fact would not necessarily deny relief to the defendant. The case relied upon by the state, Stonebreaker v. Smyth, 163 F.2d 498 (4 Cir. 1947), involved a situation where the law had been changed by Supreme Court decisions which are necessarily binding upon the states. The Thomas case was decided by this Court of Appeals. Though state courts may for policy reasons follow the decisions of the Court of Appeals whose circuit includes their state, see Commonwealth v. Negri, 213 A.2d 670 (Pa. 9...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogans v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.
...follow the decisions of the Court of Appeals whose circuit includes their state, they are not obliged to do so." Owsley v. Peyton, 352 F.2d 804, 805 (4th Cir. 1965) (internal citation omitted); see Toghill v. Clarke, 877 F.3d 547, 553 n.4 (4th Cir. 2017). When a party plans to petition for ......
-
Freeman v. Lane
...v. Crisp, 561 F.2d 1351, 1354 (10th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 908, 98 S.Ct. 1458, 55 L.Ed.2d 499 (1978); Owsley v. Peyton, 352 F.2d 804, 805 (4th Cir.1965).4 While a criminal defendant has a right to counsel in his first appeal as of right, Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 602, 94 S.C......
-
Dyer v. Calderon
...the United States, co-ordinate courts.") (quoting Iowa Nat'l Bank v. Stewart, 214 Iowa 1229, 232 N.W. 445, 454 (1930)); Owsley v. Peyton, 352 F.2d 804, 805 (4th Cir.1965) ("Though state courts may for policy reasons follow the decisions of the Court of Appeals whose circuit includes their s......
-
Toghill v. Commonwealth
...requires that a state court's interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court's interpretation.”); Owsley v. Peyton, 352 F.2d 804, 805 (4th Cir.1965) (denying that a Fourth Circuit decision alters existing Virginia law and acknowledging that “[t]hough state courts may for ......