Carl Kimbro v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden Tennessee State Penitentiary

Sixth Circuit

Carl Kimbro v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden Tennessee State Penitentiary

407 F.2d 1331, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 13330

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 1969

Docket18541

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 407 F.2d 1331 (Carl Kimbro v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden Tennessee State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carl Kimbro v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden Tennessee State Penitentiary, 407 F.2d 1331, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 13330 (6th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is the third time petitioner-appellant’s collateral attacks upon his 99-year sentence for murder in the Tennessee state courts has been before this court. Kimbro v. Bomar, 333 F.2d 755 (6th Cir. 1964); Kimbro v. Heer, 364 F.2d 116 (6th Cir. 1966).

In relation to the second of the appeals cited above, the United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963)). Kimbro v. Heer, 386 U.S. 128, 87 S.Ct. 902, 17 L.Ed.2d 778 (1967). That hearing has now been held and the United States District Court has entered another judgment denying petitioner-appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus with a detailed statement *1332 of the District Judge’s reasons therefor. 277 F.Supp. 550 (W.D.Tenn.1967).

On appellant’s appeal to this court from that decision, the court has been advised that petitioner-appellant has been unable to> procure a transcript of the evidentiary hearing before the District Court because of the death of the court reporter who reported that proceeding.

On consideration of the appellate issues sought to be presented, this court finds that a transcript may prove to be necessary for proper appellate consideration. Therefore, the judgment of the District Court in this proceeding is vacated and the cause is remanded for rehearing and appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is the third time petitioner-appellant’s collateral attacks upon his 99-year sentence for murder in the Tennessee state courts has been before this court. Kimbro v. Bomar, 333 F.2d 755 (6th Cir. 1964); Kimbro v. Heer, 364 F.2d 116 (6th Cir. 1966).

In relation to the second of the appeals cited above, the United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963)). Kimbro v. Heer, 386 U.S. 128, 87 S.Ct. 902, 17 L.Ed.2d 778 (1967). That hearing has now been held and the United States District Court has entered another judgment denying petitioner-appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus with a detailed statement *1332 of the District Judge’s reasons therefor. 277 F.Supp. 550 (W.D.Tenn.1967).

On appellant’s appeal to this court from that decision, the court has been advised that petitioner-appellant has been unable to> procure a transcript of the evidentiary hearing before the District Court because of the death of the court reporter who reported that proceeding.

On consideration of the appellate issues sought to be presented, this court finds that a transcript may prove to be necessary for proper appellate consideration. Therefore, the judgment of the District Court in this proceeding is vacated and the cause is remanded for rehearing and appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

407 F.2d 1331, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 13330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carl-kimbro-v-c-murray-henderson-warden-tennessee-state-penitentiary-ca6-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack