From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edwards v. Rhea

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Nov 2, 1956
238 F.2d 850 (6th Cir. 1956)

Opinion

No. 12786.

November 2, 1956.

Nat Tipton, Advocate General of Tenn., Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.

Frank S. King, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.


This is an appeal by the Warden of the Tennessee State Prison from a judgment of the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee which granted the appellee a writ of habeas corpus and ordered his release from custody.

The court held that the appellee had exhausted the remedies available to him in the courts of Tennessee, and that under the circumstances disclosed by the record, his failure to seek a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court did not preclude his right to apply to the federal district court for habeas corpus relief. The court further held that the statute under authority of which the appellee was confined, the Tennessee Habitual Criminal Act, as originally enacted, Williams' Code Tenn. § 11863.1 et seq., was offensive to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in permitting a defendant to be required to answer the charge of being an habitual criminal without actual notice in advance of trial.

The opinion of Judge Davies in which these conclusions are reached is reasoned with clarity and thoroughness. It is published in D.C., 136 F. Supp. 671. For the reasons there stated, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Edwards v. Rhea

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Nov 2, 1956
238 F.2d 850 (6th Cir. 1956)
Case details for

Edwards v. Rhea

Case Details

Full title:James E. EDWARDS, Warden of the State Prison, Appellant, v. Charles RHEA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Nov 2, 1956

Citations

238 F.2d 850 (6th Cir. 1956)

Citing Cases

Oyler v. Boles

It is said that the record fails to show that this precise point was raised at the trial. If so, West…

Carr v. Lee

Holland, 560 U.S. at 649 (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). In ¶ 18 of the Amended §…