Wright v. Brady

Fourth Circuit

Wright v. Brady

129 F.2d 109, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3308

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 1942

DocketNo. 4912

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 129 F.2d 109 (Wright v. Brady) 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

Wright v. Brady, 129 F.2d 109, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3308 (4th Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Defendant was convicted in a state court of the crime of burglary and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He complains that the court did not appoint' counsel to defend him, that certain evidence was improperly admitted on the trial and that the evidence was not sufficien! [110]*110for his conviction. It is clear that the failure of the state court to appoint counsel did not amount to a denial of due process or oust the court’s jurisdiction so as to warrant the release of the prisoner on habeas corpus. Betts v. Brady, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. -. And certainly the federal court could not review on habeas corpus errors of the state court in the admission or rejection of testimony or the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Woolsey v. Best, 299 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 2, 81 L.Ed. 3; Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U.S. 420, 32 S.Ct. 753, 56 L.Ed. 1147; Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 33 S.Ct. 945, 57 L.Ed. 1274, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 397. The order denying the writ of habeas corpus will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Defendant was convicted in a state court of the crime of burglary and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He complains that the court did not appoint' counsel to defend him, that certain evidence was improperly admitted on the trial and that the evidence was not sufficien! [110]*110for his conviction. It is clear that the failure of the state court to appoint counsel did not amount to a denial of due process or oust the court’s jurisdiction so as to warrant the release of the prisoner on habeas corpus. Betts v. Brady, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. -. And certainly the federal court could not review on habeas corpus errors of the state court in the admission or rejection of testimony or the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Woolsey v. Best, 299 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 2, 81 L.Ed. 3; Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U.S. 420, 32 S.Ct. 753, 56 L.Ed. 1147; Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 33 S.Ct. 945, 57 L.Ed. 1274, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 397. The order denying the writ of habeas corpus will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 F.2d 109, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-brady-ca4-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack