TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harris v. Ellis

Harris v. Ellis, 204 F.2d 685 (5th Cir. 1953)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 29, 1953
Docket
No. 14445
Judges
Holmes, Borah, Rive
Citations
204 F.2d 6851953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2486

Opinion — Borah

BORAH, Circuit Judge.

The appellant is confined in the Texas State Penitentiary under a sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Tarrant County Criminal District Court of Fort Worth, Texas on June 8, 1946. Upon a charge of passing a forged instrument and in violation of the Habitual Criminal Act of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. arts 61 to 64, he was tried and found guilty by a jury in that court on June 3, 1946.

After having unsuccessfully challenged the legality of his detention by habeas corpus proceedings in the courts of the State of Texas and having been denied certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States, he applied to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied his petition and declined to issue a certificate of probable cause, but permitted him to file his notice of appeal in forma pauperis.

Section 2253, Title 28 U.S.C.A. provides that “An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding where the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court, unless the justice or judge who rendered the order or a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of probable cause.”

In the absence of a certificate of probable cause, the order of the district court is not reviewable by this court. Brite v. People of the State of California, 9 Cir., 178 F.2d 925 ; Hopson v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 182 F.2d 936 ; Ex parte Farrell, 1 Cir., 189 F.2d 540, 543 .

We take this opportunity, however of saying that we find in the record no adequate basis for the issuance of a certificate of probable cause and no reason to believe that the district court lawfully could have done otherwise than deny the appellant’s petition. The appellant made no substantial showing of the denial of any federal right and upon the authority of Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 116, 117 , 64 S.Ct. 448 , 88 L.Ed. 572 ; White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 764 , 65 S.Ct. 978 , 89 L.Ed. 1348 ; Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 203, 204 , 70 S.Ct. 587 , 94 L.Ed. 761 , the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1954: 51955: 21956: 11962: 11968: 11970: 11971: 11980: 11983: 21985: 11986: 11991: 119542026peak 1954 · 5

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200 (1950) 828
Ex Parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114 (1944) 509
White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760 (1945) 286
Ex Parte Farrell, 189 F.2d 540 (1st Cir. 1951) 37
Brite v. State of Cal., 178 F.2d 925 (9th Cir. 1949) 4
Hopson v. Smyth, 182 F.2d 936 (4th Cir. 1950) 2

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