BOBBIE J. HAMILTON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A state prisoner has no absolute federal constitutional right to bail pending appeal, and federal courts do not review state court discretion in denying bail.
Appellant, convicted of assault, was denied an appeal bond by state courts and sought federal habeas corpus relief. The district court denied his appl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Upon conviction of assault, appellant Bobbie Hamilton applied for an appeal bond, which was denied by both the sentencing court and the state supreme court. Appellant then sought federal habeas corpus relief to assert that his constitutional right to bail had been denied. There is a direct appeal now pending in the state court.
The real issue is whether appellant has a claim which is cognizable by federal habeas corpus. A state prisoner has no absolute federal constitutional right to bail pending appeal. Bloss v. Michigan, 421 F. 2d 903 (6th Cir. 1970); United States ex rel. Fink v. Heyd, 408 F. 2d 7 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 895, 90 S.Ct. 192, 24 L.Ed.2d 172; United States ex rel. Klein v. Deegan, 290 F.Supp. 66 (S.D.N.Y.1968); United States ex rel. Siegal v. Follette, 290 F. Supp. 632 (S.D.N.Y.1968); Iles v. Ellis, 264 F.Supp. 185 (S.D.Ind.1967).
Federal courts do not sit as appellate courts to review the use or abuse of discretion of state courts in granting or withholding bail pending final appeal. Bloss v. Michigan, supra, 421 F. 2d at 906. And, generally, denial of bail is not an available basis for seeking post-conviction relief. Corbett v. Patterson, 272 F.Supp. 602 (D.C.Colo. 1967). See also Sheldon v. Nebraska, 401 F. 2d 342 (8th Cir. 1968).
We notified appellant that the court was considering summary affirmance and that appellee had filed a motion to affirm. We now have before us appellant’s memorandum in opposition to summary affirmance and his response to motion to affirm. Nonetheless, we have now carefully and thoroughly reviewed the files and records in this case, and are convinced that the district court’s denial of relief was proper. Accordingly, the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gallie v. Wainwright, 362 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1978)
-
Hart v. State, 405 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
-
Jasper Roberson v. State OF Conn., 501 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States ex rel. Stephen Fink v. Heyd, 408 F.2d 7 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Bloss v. People OF the State OF Mich., 421 F.2d 903 (6th Cir. 1970)
- James v. New York, 396 U.S. 895 (U.S. 1969)
- Stebbins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 396 U.S. 895 (U.S. 1969)
- Sheldon v. State OF Neb., 401 F.2d 342 (8th Cir. 1968)