TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hedgebeth v. North Carolina

Hedgebeth v. North Carolina, 334 U.S. 806 (1948)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
June 14, 1948
Docket
No. 674
Judges
Douglas, Rutledge
Citations
334 U.S. 80668 S. Ct. 118592 L. Ed. 2d 173992 L. Ed. 17391948 U.S. LEXIS 1990

Opinion — Per Curiam

*807 Per Curiam.

After a conviction for robbery, petitioner sued out a writ of habeas corpus in a Superior Court of North Carolina claiming that the sentence he is serving involved a denial of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The writ was dismissed and the dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. 228 N. C. 259 , 45 S. E. 2d 563 . If petitioner’s allegations, with supporting affidavits, in the habeas corpus proceedings controlled the issue before us, they would establish circumstances that make the right to assistance of counsel an ingredient of the Due Process Clause. While the Supreme Court of North Carolina recognized the right of an accused to the benefit of counsel under appropriate circumstances, it held that in the proceedings on the habeas corpus the trial court had before it not merely the petitioner’s allegations but "the oral testimony of the sheriff, which was not sent up.” In short, there was before the North Carolina Supreme Court only a partial record of the proceedings in the Superior Court. In reviewing a judgment of a state court, we are bound by the record on which that judgment was based. Since the North Carolina Supreme Court went on the ground that it did not have the full record before it, we are constrained to dismiss this writ because the judgment below can rest on a non-federal ground. Petitioner’s rights under the Federal Constitution must be pursued according to the procedural requirements of North Carolina or, in default of relief by available North Carolina proceedings, by a new claim of denial of due process for want of such relief.

Foster v. Illinois, 332 U. S. 134, 139 .

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1951: 11952: 21953: 21955: 11956: 11966: 11975: 11976: 11978: 11980: 11997: 12011: 119512026peak 1952 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Tolley226 S.E.2d 353 (N.C. 1976)
  2. State v. Saults261 S.E.2d 839 (N.C. 1980)
  3. State v. Cruse76 S.E.2d 320 (N.C. 1953)
  4. Yan-Min Wang v. Unc-Ch School of Medicine716 S.E.2d 646 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)
  5. State v. Vick213 S.E.2d 335 (N.C. 1975)
  6. Lorbacher v. Housing Authority of Raleigh493 S.E.2d 74 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997)

Most recent

  1. Yan-Min Wang v. Unc-Ch School of Medicine716 S.E.2d 646 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)
  2. Lorbacher v. Housing Authority of Raleigh493 S.E.2d 74 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997)
  3. State v. Saults261 S.E.2d 839 (N.C. 1980)
  4. Floyd v. Philadelphia8 Pa. D. & C.3d 371 (1978)
  5. State v. Tolley226 S.E.2d 353 (N.C. 1976)
  6. State v. Vick213 S.E.2d 335 (N.C. 1975)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Hedgebeth, 45 S.E.2d 563 (N.C. 1947) 21
Foster v. Illinois, 332 U.S. 134 (1947) 127

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list