John Dunn v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Fourth Circuit

John Dunn v. Commonwealth of Virginia

357 F.2d 491, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6910

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 1966

Docket10211

StatusPublished

This text of 357 F.2d 491 (John Dunn v. Commonwealth of Virginia) 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

John Dunn v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 357 F.2d 491, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6910 (4th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After being convicted of disorderly conduct and fined $10 in a Richmond, Virginia, police court, appellant had a trial de novo in the Hustings Court Part 2 of Richmond. There the fine was increased to $25, which was promptly paid. Later the appellant had a retrial in the Hustings Court, and he still has a pending petition for another retrial. Throughout those proceedings he was represented by counsel retained by him. Before the state court disposed of his second motion for. retrial, he brought an action in the United States District Court for the following relief: an order requiring the Commonwealth of Virginia to return the fine paid by him; a declaration that he has been denied due process of law; a declaration that the fine paid by him was excessive and vio-lative of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.

The District Court dismissed on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the complaint. The District Court also stated that, even if the complaint were treated as a collateral attack on the criminal proceeding, it must be dismissed because appellant has not exhausted available state remedies.

We affirm.

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

PER CURIAM.

After being convicted of disorderly conduct and fined $10 in a Richmond, Virginia, police court, appellant had a trial de novo in the Hustings Court Part 2 of Richmond. There the fine was increased to $25, which was promptly paid. Later the appellant had a retrial in the Hustings Court, and he still has a pending petition for another retrial. Throughout those proceedings he was represented by counsel retained by him. Before the state court disposed of his second motion for. retrial, he brought an action in the United States District Court for the following relief: an order requiring the Commonwealth of Virginia to return the fine paid by him; a declaration that he has been denied due process of law; a declaration that the fine paid by him was excessive and vio-lative of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.

The District Court dismissed on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the complaint. The District Court also stated that, even if the complaint were treated as a collateral attack on the criminal proceeding, it must be dismissed because appellant has not exhausted available state remedies.

We affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 F.2d 491, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-dunn-v-commonwealth-of-virginia-ca4-1966.