Sublett v. Adams, 362 U.S. 143 (1960)
U.S. Supreme Court
Sublett v. Adams, 362 U.S. 143 (1960)Sublett v. Adams
No. 406, Misc.
Decided March 7, 1960
362 U.S. 143
Syllabus
Petitioner applied to a State Supreme Court for writ of habeas corpus, charging that his confinement was in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That Court refused the writ without either a hearing or a response from the State.
Held: the facts alleged entitle petitioner to a hearing under Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116. Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sublett v. Adams, 362 U.S. 143 (1960)Sublett v. Adams
No. 406, Misc.
Decided March 7, 1960
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
Syllabus
Petitioner applied to a State Supreme Court for writ of habeas corpus, charging that his confinement was in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That Court refused the writ without either a hearing or a response from the State.
Held: the facts alleged entitle petitioner to a hearing under Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116. Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Petitioner charged that he was being held in prison without lawful authority and in violation of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals refused the writ without either a hearing or a response from the State.
We hold that the facts alleged are such as to entitle petitioner to a hearing under Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116. The judgment is vacated, and the case remanded to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.