Anderson Jones v. W. Frank Smyth, Jr., Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary

Fourth Circuit

Anderson Jones v. W. Frank Smyth, Jr., Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary

270 F.2d 808

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 7, 1959

Docket7939

StatusPublished

This text of 270 F.2d 808 (Anderson Jones v. W. Frank Smyth, Jr., Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson Jones v. W. Frank Smyth, Jr., Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, 270 F.2d 808 (4th Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this state prisoner complains of many things. Most of them are properly addressed to the state courts only. One, that he was convicted because of the admission of a coerced confession, would merit inquiry, but apparently this assertion was made for the first time in the District Court.

The petition alleges generally that the successive steps in the state court remedy were taken, but copies of the papers were not attached, and there is no specific allegation that the claim of coercive extraction of the confession was presented to the state courts. A copy of the petition filed in the state court proceedings has been furnished us by the respondent. It contains no allegation that the confession was improperly taken.

Under these circumstances, we hold that the District Court properly dismissed the petition without a hearing, because the petitioner had not shown, as to this question, exhaustion of state court remedies.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this state prisoner complains of many things. Most of them are properly addressed to the state courts only. One, that he was convicted because of the admission of a coerced confession, would merit inquiry, but apparently this assertion was made for the first time in the District Court.

The petition alleges generally that the successive steps in the state court remedy were taken, but copies of the papers were not attached, and there is no specific allegation that the claim of coercive extraction of the confession was presented to the state courts. A copy of the petition filed in the state court proceedings has been furnished us by the respondent. It contains no allegation that the confession was improperly taken.

Under these circumstances, we hold that the District Court properly dismissed the petition without a hearing, because the petitioner had not shown, as to this question, exhaustion of state court remedies.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 F.2d 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-jones-v-w-frank-smyth-jr-superintendent-of-the-virginia-state-ca4-1959.