CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


BUSHNELL v. ELLIS, 366 U.S. 418 (1961)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 366 U.S. 418 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

BUSHNELL v. ELLIS, 366 U.S. 418 (1961)

366 U.S. 418

BUSHNELL v. ELLIS, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS.
No. 561.
Argued May 2, 1961.
Decided May 22, 1961.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded to Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas to grant petitioner a hearing on his petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Percy D. Williams, acting under appointment by the Court, 364 U.S. 917, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

B. H. Timmins, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Will Wilson, Attorney General, and Linward Shivers, Assistant Attorney General.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to grant petitioner a hearing upon his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U.S. 437; Cash v. Culver, 358 U.S. 633; McNeal v. Culver, 365 U.S. 109.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, with whom MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN join, dissenting.

This application for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed as an original action in the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Neither the record, the briefs, nor argument of counsel indicates that such an action has ever been filed in a District Court of Texas as appears to be required by Texas procedure. See Ex parte Rodriguez,

Page 366 U.S. 418, 419

169 Tex. Cr. R. ___, 334 S. W. 2d 294 (1960); Ex parte Fitzpatrick, 167 Tex. Cr. R. 376, 320 S. W. 2d 683 (1959); Ex parte Brooks, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 397, 212 S. W. 956 (1919). The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals might, therefore, have been based upon an independent state ground. In this condition of the record, I would affirm the judgment without prejudice to the petitioner's filing in any appropriate Texas District Court an application for a writ of habeas corpus to test out the validity of his detention. See Vernon's Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 119.



Full Text of Opinion





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED