Woolsey v. Best

Supreme Court

Woolsey v. Best

299 U.S. 1, 57 S. Ct. 2, 81 L. Ed. 3, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 1

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 12, 1936

Docket256

StatusPublished

Cited by74 cases

This text of 299 U.S. 1 (Woolsey v. Best) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woolsey v. Best, 299 U.S. 1, 57 S. Ct. 2, 81 L. Ed. 3, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 1 (1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant brought this proceeding in the Supreme Court of Colorado to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied without opinion. It appears that appellant was held pursuant to conviction for violation *2 of .§ 2676 C. L. 1921, being § 40, c. 44, Session Laws 1913, of the laws of Colorado (see also § 2740 C. L. 1921, being § 85, c. 44 of Session Laws of 1913), the judgment of conviction having been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. Woolsey v. People, 98 Colo. 62; 53 P. (2d) 596.

It is well established that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error. This is the rule in Colorado as well as -in this Court. The judgment of conviction was not subject to collateral attack. People ex rel. Burchinell v. District Court, 22 Colo. 422; 45 Pac. 402; Martin v. District Court, 37 Colo. 110, 115; 86 Pac. 82; Chemgas v. Tynan, 51 Colo. 35; 116 Pac. 1045; In re Arakawa, 78 Colo. 193, 196; 240 Pac. 940; In re Nottingham, 84 Colo. 123, 128; 268 Pac. 587. Compare Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442; Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U. S. 333; Craig v. Hecht, 263 U. S. 255, 277; Knewel v. Egan, 268 U. S. 442, 445, 446; Cox v. Colorado, 282 U. S. 807. It is apparent from the record submitted that the state court had jurisdiction to try the appellant for violation of the statute in question and that any federal question properly raised as to the validity of the statute could have been heard and determined on appeal to this Court from the final judgment in that action. The Supreme Court of the State was not required by the Federal Constitution to entertain such questions on the subsequent petition for habeas corpus, and it does not appear that its denial of the petition did not rest upon an adequate non-federal ground. Lynch v. New York, 293 U. S. 52, and cases there cited. ■ The appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant brought this proceeding in the Supreme Court of Colorado to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied without opinion. It appears that appellant was held pursuant to conviction for violation *2 of .§ 2676 C. L. 1921, being § 40, c. 44, Session Laws 1913, of the laws of Colorado (see also § 2740 C. L. 1921, being § 85, c. 44 of Session Laws of 1913), the judgment of conviction having been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. Woolsey v. People, 98 Colo. 62; 53 P. (2d) 596.

It is well established that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error. This is the rule in Colorado as well as -in this Court. The judgment of conviction was not subject to collateral attack. People ex rel. Burchinell v. District Court, 22 Colo. 422; 45 Pac. 402; Martin v. District Court, 37 Colo. 110, 115; 86 Pac. 82; Chemgas v. Tynan, 51 Colo. 35; 116 Pac. 1045; In re Arakawa, 78 Colo. 193, 196; 240 Pac. 940; In re Nottingham, 84 Colo. 123, 128; 268 Pac. 587. Compare Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442; Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U. S. 333; Craig v. Hecht, 263 U. S. 255, 277; Knewel v. Egan, 268 U. S. 442, 445, 446; Cox v. Colorado, 282 U. S. 807. It is apparent from the record submitted that the state court had jurisdiction to try the appellant for violation of the statute in question and that any federal question properly raised as to the validity of the statute could have been heard and determined on appeal to this Court from the final judgment in that action. The Supreme Court of the State was not required by the Federal Constitution to entertain such questions on the subsequent petition for habeas corpus, and it does not appear that its denial of the petition did not rest upon an adequate non-federal ground. Lynch v. New York, 293 U. S. 52, and cases there cited. ■ The appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 U.S. 1, 57 S. Ct. 2, 81 L. Ed. 3, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolsey-v-best-scotus-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack