TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Theriault v. State

Theriault v. State, 126 So. 2d 504 (Miss. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Mississippi Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 23, 1961
Docket
No. 41587
Judges
Ethridge
Citations
126 So. 2d 504240 Miss. 541961 Miss. LEXIS 427

Opinion of the Court — Ethridge

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Ethridge, J.

*55 ON PETITIONS FOB WBITS OB HABEAS COBPUS AND OF EBBOB

Appellant Theriault was convicted in the Circuit Court of Forrest County of grand larceny, after a jury trial in which he was without counsel hut represented himself in an able manner. This Court affirmed that conviction on October 3, 1960. No suggestion of error was filed, and the judgment became final.

On January 9, 1961, Theriault filed a petition for habeas corpus. He alleges he is illegally detained, and that his conviction violated the due process and other clauses of the constitutions of the United States and State of Mississippi. After a careful review of the petition, we conclude that it is manifest he is not entitled to any relief on it; his conviction was amply supported by the evidence, and the trial was in accord with due process requirements. Miss. Code 1942, Bee., Sec. 2820. Hence we decline to grant the writ of habeas corpus.

Theriault also petitions for a “writ of error”. The judgment of this Court became final on October 18, 1960, over three months ago. It is too late to reconsider the original appeal.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied; petition for writ of error dismissed.

All Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1969: 119692026peak 1969 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Harry William Theriault v. United States401 F.2d 79 (8th Cir. 1969)

Most recent

  1. Harry William Theriault v. United States401 F.2d 79 (8th Cir. 1969)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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