Hall v. People of State of California

79 F.2d 132, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4042
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 5, 1935
Docket7700
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 79 F.2d 132 (Hall v. People of State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hall v. People of State of California, 79 F.2d 132, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4042 (9th Cir. 1935).

Opinion

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of first-degree murder in a superior court of the state of California, and was thereupon sentenced to death and committed to the warden of the state penitentiary for execution of the sentence. On appeal to the Supreme Court of California, the judgment and sentence were affirmed. People v. Hall, 220 Cal. 166, 30 P.(2d) 23, 996. An appeal was then taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, but was dismissed for the want of a properly presented federal question, and for the reason that the decision of the Supreme Court of California was based upon nonfederal grounds adequate to support it. Hall v. California, 292 U. S. 614, 54 S. Ct. 869, 78 L. Ed. 1473. Thereafter appellant filed in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that, in the proceedings had against him in the superior court, he was denied due process of law and deprived of other constitutional rights, and that, therefore, his detention by the warden was in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. This appeal is from an order denying the writ and dismissing appellant’s petition.

From the petition itself it affirmatively appears that appellant has not applied to any court of the state of California for a writ of habeas corpus. Such a writ is available in that state. Constitution of California, art. 1, § 5; article 6, § 4. Orderly procedure requires that, before a federal court is asked to issue a writ of habeas corpus, in the case of a person held under a state commitment, recourse should be had to what *133 ever judicial remedy is afforded by the state. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 115, 55 S. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791; United States ex rel. Kennedy v. Tyler, 269 U. S. 13, 17, 46 S. Ct. 1, 70 L. Ed. 138; Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179, 181, 27 S. Ct. 459, 51 L. Ed. 760; United States ex rel. Drury v. Lewis, 200 U. S. 1, 6, 26 S. Ct. 229, 50 L. Ed. 343; Reid v. Jones, 187 U. S. 153, 154, 23 S. Ct. 89, 47 L. Ed. 116; Davis v. Burke, 179 U. S. 399, 401, 21 S. Ct. 210, 45 L. Ed. 249. Exceptional circumstances may, in rare cases, justify a departure from this rule (In re Neagle [Cunningham v. Neagle], 135 U. S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 658, 34 L. Ed. 55; In re Loney [Thomas v. Loney], 134 U. S. 372, 10 S. Ct. 584, 33 L. Ed. 949; Mali v. Keeper of the Common Jail [Wildenhus’ Case], 120 U. S. 1, 7 S. Ct. 385, 30 L. Ed. 565), but no such exceptional circumstances appea»* in this case.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Ex parte Darr
77 F. Supp. 553 (E.D. Oklahoma, 1948)
Barton v. Smith
162 F.2d 330 (Ninth Circuit, 1947)
Johnson v. Wilson
131 F.2d 1 (Fifth Circuit, 1942)
In Re Ryan
47 F. Supp. 10 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1942)
Eyer v. Brady
128 F.2d 1012 (Fourth Circuit, 1942)
Kramer v. Nevada
122 F.2d 417 (Ninth Circuit, 1941)
Hall v. Verdel
40 F. Supp. 941 (W.D. Virginia, 1941)
United States v. House
110 F.2d 797 (Ninth Circuit, 1940)
Ex parte Hicks
98 F.2d 116 (Ninth Circuit, 1938)
Ex parte Cowen
98 F.2d 530 (Ninth Circuit, 1938)
Fuller v. McCauley
93 F.2d 1004 (Ninth Circuit, 1938)
Milliken v. McCauley
93 F.2d 645 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
Phillips v. McCauley
92 F.2d 790 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
McCauley v. Goldberg
91 F.2d 1016 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
McCauley v. Palmer
91 F.2d 1017 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
McCauley v. Mehlhorn
91 F.2d 1017 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
United States ex rel. Grove v. Jackson
16 F. Supp. 126 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 F.2d 132, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-people-of-state-of-california-ca9-1935.