TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Donald Hale v. Otto C. Boles, Warden of the West Virginia State Penitentiary

Donald HALE, Appellant, v. Otto C. BOLES, Warden of the West Virginia State Penitentiary, Appellee

Hale v. Boles, 419 F.2d 389 (4th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 28, 1969
Docket
No. 13064_1
Judges
Sobeloff, Boreman, Bryan
Citations
419 F.2d 3891969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12189

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner appeals from an order of the District Court (Maxwell, J.) denying his motion for discharge from conviction and his petition for habeas corpus.

The District Court found that by refusing to petition for habeas corpus pursuant to the West Virginia Post Conviction Statute, West Virginia Code, 53-4A (Michie Supp.1968), as directed by the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, upon remand from the District Court, petitioner lost his right to federal relief. In explication of his refusal, petitioner, in separate statements submitted to this court on appeal, argues first that he “was seeking release not a trial or appeal,” and second that he failed to take the prescribed procedural step on advice of appointed counsel. These reasons may be complementary; the decision to refuse to take the necessary procedural steps may have been the considered choice of petitioner, reached after consultation with his counsel. If so, petitioner’s refusal might fairly be characterized as a deliberate by-pass of state remedial procedures, and withholding federal relief would be proper. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 438-439 , 83 S.Ct. 822 , 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963). On the other hand, in his second statement, petitioner may be telling the court that he was overborne by counsel, and that his refusal was not his volition. “A choice made by counsel not participated in by the petitioner does not automatically bar relief.” Fay v. Noia, supra at 439 , 83 S.Ct. at 849 . This latter position, which petitioner did not advance until April 1, 1969, in a letter to this court, was not before the District Court, and accordingly we remand to the District Court to determine whether or not petitioner understandingly and deliberately by-passed the state remedy.

In his April 1, 1969 letter, petitioner also alleges that following the District Court’s decision and order of October 3, 1968, he filed a petition, the prescribed procedural step, in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, but relief was denied. On remand, the District Court is directed to consider these allegations also, A certificate of probable cause to appeal is hereby granted and the cause remanded to the District Court for consideration of the issues we have just discussed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1978: 11985: 119782026peak 1978 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Joseph James Blake v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Center758 F.2d 523 (11th Cir. 1985)
  2. Jenkins v. State367 So. 2d 587 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)

Most recent

  1. Joseph James Blake v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Center758 F.2d 523 (11th Cir. 1985)
  2. Jenkins v. State367 So. 2d 587 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963) 3,275

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