While confined under sentence of an Illinois court following his
conviction of armed robbery, petitioner sought a writ of habeas
corpus from a Federal District Court, claiming that a confession
coerced by physical mistreatment by police officers had been
introduced into evidence at his trial. Relying on facts and
conclusions stated in an opinion of the State Supreme Court, and
without making an examination of the record of the proceedings in
the state courts, the District Court dismissed the application
without a hearing.
Held: it erred in doing so. Pp.
358 U. S.
276-277.
Judgment vacated and cause remanded to District Court for
further proceedings.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and
the petition for writ of certiorari are granted.
Petitioner, confined under sentence of an Illinois court
following his conviction of armed robbery, sought a writ of habeas
corpus from the Federal District Court. His petition contained
allegations, primarily concerning the introduction into evidence at
his trial of a confession coerced by physical mistreatment by
police officers, which, if true, would entitle him to relief.
Appended to the petition were various documents, including an
opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois affirming his conviction
and simultaneously affirming the denial to him of post-conviction
remedies which he had sought in the trial court while
Page 358 U. S. 277
his appeal from the conviction was pending.
See People v.
Jennings, 11 Ill. 2d
610,
144 N.E.2d
612. In that opinion, the state court held that the evidence
before it warranted the trial court's finding that petitioner's
confession had been voluntary.
The State responded to petitioner's application, and urged
dismissal. The District Court, on a record limited to the
aforementioned documents augmented by a "report" prepared by an
amicus curiae appointed by it, dismissed the application
without a hearing. The Court of Appeals, in turn, denied
petitioner's motion for a certificate of probable cause, 28 U.S.C.
ยง 2253, and dismissed his appeal.
It appears from the record before us that the District Court
dismissed petitioner's application without making any examination
of the record of proceedings in the state courts, and instead
simply relied on the facts and conclusions stated in the opinion of
the Supreme Court of Illinois. We think that the District Court
erred in dismissing this petition without first satisfying itself,
by an appropriate examination of the state court record, that this
was a proper case for the dismissal of petitioner's application
without a hearing, in accordance with the principles set forth in
Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443,
344 U. S.
463-465,
344 U. S. 506.
See also Rogers v. Richmond, 357 U.
S. 220. It follows that the judgment of the Court of
Appeals must be vacated, and the case remanded to the District
Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.