Legal Document

340 U.S. 206 71 Supreme Court Reporter 262 95 L.Ed. 215 DOWDv.UNITED STATES ex rel. COOK. Number 66. Argued Nov. 28, 1950. Decided Jan. 2, 1951. Mr. Charles Federal KF105 F3 O'Connor, Indianapolis, Ind., for petitioner. William S. Isham, Fowler, respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent, Lawrence E. Cook, brought this habeas corpus proceeding in United States District 1948. After hearing evidence, found as follows: In 1931 respondent was convicted murder an Indiana court, sentenced to life imprisonment, and immediately confined state penitentiary. Within six-month period allowed appeal right by law, prepared proper papers. His efforts file documents supreme however, were frustrated warden acting pursuant prison rules. Subsequently, but after had expired, ban on sending papers from lifted unsuccessfully sought have courts review his conviction coram nobis 19371 1945.2 1946 petition a delayed denied.3 On these findings, held that there been denial equal protection law which State provided no remedy, ordered respondent's discharge. The Appeals Seventh Circuit affirmed. 180 Reporter, 2nd Series 212. 2 admits, it must, discriminatory statutory is violation Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Cochran versus Kansas, 316 255, 62 1068, 86 1453. It contends, litigation established authorities not prevented timely respondent, principle res judicata precluded contrary determination fact Even if rule applicable proceedings, cf. Waley Johnston, 101, 105, 964, 966, 1302, would bearing present case. court made only one finding, pertained matter now dispute.4 Moreover, so far suppression original concerned, record before us strongly indicates finding ascribed could made. 3 also contends despite protection, longer entitled relief because he 'waived' appeal. argument suspended limitation time appealed within six months date restraint removed 1933. We cannot accept view. appellate jurisdiction apparently conditioned filing papers.5 More recently, rigid may relaxed provide discretionary appeals defendants.6 But we find indication either any taking or such will ever be heard right. shows denied 1946, court's discretion.7 Consequently, has never same judgment against him therefore agree with that, while State's 'waiver' theory ingenious, without merit. Under peculiar circumstances case, nothing short actual merits conviction—according procedure prevailing ordinary cases—would cure law. 4 There remains question disposition Fortunately, are confronted dilemma envisaged having choose between ordering absolute discharge prisoner denying all relief. power 'dispose justice require.' 28 Code KF62 § 2243, Annotated KF65 U5 2243. Amendment precludes keeping imprisoned persists depriving type generally afforded those crime. other hand, does require granted reveals trial free error. Now determined federal constitutional question, possible entitled. judgments vacated case remanded. remand, should enter orders appropriate allow reasonable afford full received papers, failing shall discharged. See Mahler Eby, 264 32, 46, 44 283, 288, 68 549. ordered. 5 Judgments Cook State, 219 Ind. 234, 37 North Eastern 63; Wickens, 222 383, 53 630. Howard, 223 694, 64 25, certiorari 327 808, 66 960, 90 1032. This order unreported. Certiorari here denied. Indiana, 330 841, 67 981, 91 1287. 'the basic allegation said to-wit: (Cook's) counsel refused, pay, take true * *.' Dudley 200 398, 161 Northeastern KF135 N59 1; Farlow 196 295, 142 849; Farrell 85 221; Winsett 54 437; Lichtenfels 161. 6 suggested 1945 might able 25. Cf. Warren Telephone Co., 217 93, 26 399; White Hilgemann, 218 572, 34 129; Johns 227 737, 89 281. 1947 enacted more liberal into its Burns' Ind.Ann.Stat., 1942 Replacement Vol., (Cum.Supp.1949) 9-3305. 7 note 3, supra; Sweet 226 566, 81 679.

Classification Label: 0