William Essex, Jr. v. M. J. Elliott
William ESSEX, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. M. J. ELLIOTT, Respondent-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
This is before us on application for appointment of counsel. We need not reach this since the case obviously must be remanded. Without holding an evidentiary hearing and relying solely on the scanty state court record before it, the District Court denied Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he had intentionally bypassed State post-conviction remedies. In the light of that record as well as the Federal Court record, the Court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue is clearly contrary to our recent decisions in Bonaparte v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1971, 448 F.2d 385 , and Johnson v. *1040 Smith, 5 Cir., 1971, 449 F.2d 127 . See also Calhoun v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1971, 447 F.2d 1356 ; Fay v. Noia, 1963, 372 U.S. 391, 439 , 83 S.Ct. 822, 849 , 9 L.Ed.2d 837, 869 . The case is therefore remanded with directions that the District Court hold an appropriate hearing and make necessary findings on the issue of deliberate by-pass of State remedies, and take such further action as would then be appropriate.
Vacated and remanded.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.