Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Supreme Court — Part 4
Page 71
71 / 78
| j
4 ; SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
No, 256.—OcToner Term, 1936.
\ a —_____
H. E. Woolsey, Appellant, | Appeal from the Supreme
i VS,
| a Roy Best, Warden, ete. Court of Colorado,
} ! Per CurtaM.
' Appellant brought this proceeding in the Supreme Court of
~ Colorado to obtain a writ of kabeas corpus. His petition was
. denied without opinion. It appears that appellant was held por-
; suant to conviction for violation of Section 2676 C, L. 1921, being
section 40, chapter 44, Session Laws 1913, of the laws of Colorado
(see also section 2740 €. L. 1921, being section 85, chapter 44 of
- affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. Woolsey v. The
tt
People, 98 Colo. 62,
It is well 4stablished that neff of habeas corpus cannot be
used as aWrit of error. This is the rule in Colorado as well as in
this Court. The judgment of conviction was not subject to
collateral attack. People ex rel. Burchinell v. District Court, 22
Colo, 422; Martin v. District Court, 37 Colo; 110, 115; Chemgas
mA v. Tynan, 51 Colo. 35; In re Arakawa, 78 Colo. 193, 196; In re
Nottingham, 84 Colo. 123, 128. Compare Herlan v. Mcourin,
218 U. 8. 442; Ruddle v. Dyche, 262 U. 8. 333; Craig v. Hecht,
263 U.S. 250, 277; Knewel v. Egan, 268 U.S. 442, 445, 446; Cor
vy. Colorado, 282 U. §. 807. Tt is apparent from the record sub-
mitted that the state court had jurisdiction to try the appellant
for violation of the statute in question and that any federal ques-
tion properly raised as to the validity of the statute could have
been heard and determined on appeal to this Court from the final
‘ judgment in that action. The Supreme Court of the State was not
’ required by the Federal Constitution to entertain such questions
on the subsequent petition for habeas corpus, and it does not ap-,
pear that its denial of the petition did not rest upon an adequate
non-federal ground. Lynch v. New York, 293 U. 8. 52, and cases
. there cited. The appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.
.
f
ona
COPIES DESTROYED Dismissed.
4 be ED
179 OCT 16 3964
° INDExED’ /
Ay
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
bureau
Related subtopics