1. The state supreme court having affirmed dismissal of a habeas
corpus proceeding involving a claim of federal constitutional right
on the ground that the full record was not before it, the writ of
certiorari granted to review that judgment is dismissed because the
judgment can rest on an adequate nonfederal ground. P.
334 U. S.
807.
2. A state prisoner's rights under the Federal Constitution must
be pursued in accordance with the state procedure or, in default of
relief by available state procedure, by a new claim of denial of
federal right for want of such relief. P.
334 U. S.
807.
228 N.C. 259, 45 S.E.2d 563, certiorari dismissed.
Petitioner sued in a state court for habeas corpus to secure
release from imprisonment under a conviction alleged to have denied
his federal constitutional rights. A judgment dismissing the writ
was affirmed by the State supreme court. 228 N.C. 259, 45 S.E.2d
563. This Court granted certiorari. 333 U.S. 854.
Dismissed, p.
334 U. S.
807.
Page 334 U. S. 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 nonfederal 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,
332 U. S.
139.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE are of the opinion
that the judgment should be reversed.