From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoy v. Crouse

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
May 26, 1969
411 F.2d 810 (10th Cir. 1969)

Opinion

No. 10010.

May 26, 1969.

Stephen E. Thompson, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Edward G. Collister, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Kent Frizzell, Atty. Gen. of Kansas, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and LEWIS and HILL, Circuit Judges.


Petitioner, a state prisoner presently serving a life sentence for murder, sought federal relief through writ of habeas corpus upon allegations that his conviction resulted from the admission of evidence obtained through constitutionally prohibited interrogations, searches and seizures. The district court summarily denied relief indicating that the Kansas Supreme Court had earlier given full and fair consideration to the issues and had decided such issues adversely to petitioner. At that time the district court had before it only the petition and the reported opinion of the Kansas court in State v. Hoy, 199 Kan. 340, 430 P.2d 275. For the reasons stated in Brown v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 399 F.2d 311; Maes v. Patterson, 10 Cir., 401 F.2d 200, and Scheer v. Patterson, 10 Cir., 411 F.2d 811, this day decided, we vacate the judgment and remand the case for further consideration. Cf. Maxwell v. Turner, 10 Cir., 411 F.2d 805, and Day v. Page, 10 Cir., 411 F.2d 810, this day decided.


Summaries of

Hoy v. Crouse

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
May 26, 1969
411 F.2d 810 (10th Cir. 1969)
Case details for

Hoy v. Crouse

Case Details

Full title:Frank A. HOY, Appellant, v. Sherman H. CROUSE, Warden, Kansas State…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: May 26, 1969

Citations

411 F.2d 810 (10th Cir. 1969)

Citing Cases

Cindle v. Page

Maes v. Patterson, supra. See also Hoy v. Crouse, 411 F.2d 810 (10th Cir. 1969) and Scheer v. Patterson, 411…