John Edward Daugherty v. Walter E. Craven, Warden

422 F.2d 6
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 27, 1970·No. 23373·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The dismissal of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reversed and the case remanded. The district court must determine whether the ex parte orders revoking probation violated the Sixth Amendment. See Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967), and McConnell v. Rhay, 393 U.S. 2, 89 S.Ct. 32, 21 L.Ed.2d 2 (1968).

From the information before us, it appears that the issue has not been presented to, or considered by, the California courts. The district court may hold the petition in abeyance for a reasonable time in order to afford the California courts the first opportunity to consider the issue. Compare Ney v. Oberhauser, 419 F.2d 828 (9th Cir. 1969).

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

John Edward Daugherty v. Walter E. Craven, Warden, 422 F.2d 6 (9th Cir. 1970).

422 F.2d 6 (John Edward Daugherty v. Walter E. Craven, Warden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Joel Gallardo v. FCA US LLC
C.D. California, 2020
In Re Tucker
486 P.2d 657 (California Supreme Court, 1971)