From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States ex Rel. Jones v. Richmond

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
May 15, 1957
245 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1957)

Opinion

Submitted April 1, 1957.

Decided May 15, 1957.

On motion for a certificate of probable cause upon an appeal from denial of a writ of habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, J. Joseph Smith, Chief Judge.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, LUMBARD, Circuit Judge, and LEIBELL, District Judge.


There is some question here whether relator, now raising new issues, has exhausted his state remedies as to them. In any event we do not think he makes a showing of federal questions adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. The record of the state hearing discloses careful consideration and representation in his behalf by the Public Defender, a responsible state official. On the issue of the tribunal to determine the degree of his guilt, Judge Cotter of the State Superior Court has carefully examined the authorities with the identical result stated by Judge Smith in a companion case to this which we have just recently affirmed. U.S. ex rel. Oakley v. Cummings, 2 Cir., Feb. 15, 1957, affirming denial of habeas corpus on the memorandum-decision of Judge Smith, rehearing denied, 2 Cir., March 12, 1957.

Accordingly the motion for a certificate of probable cause is denied and the appeal is therefore dismissed.


Summaries of

United States ex Rel. Jones v. Richmond

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
May 15, 1957
245 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1957)
Case details for

United States ex Rel. Jones v. Richmond

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES ex rel. Horace JONES, Petitioner, v. Mark S. RICHMOND…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: May 15, 1957

Citations

245 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1957)

Citing Cases

Zuern v. Tate

Id., at 893, 103 S.Ct. 3383 (quoting Stewart v. Beto, 454 F.2d 268, 270, n. 2 (C.A.5 1971), cert. denied, 406…

Walker v. U.S.

Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve…