Legal Document

419 U.S. 59 95 Supreme Court Reporter 257 42 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 226 Frank Xavier FRANCISCO, Petitioner,v.J. S. GATHRIGHT, Superintendent, Bland Correctional Farm. Number 73—5768. Argued Oct. 15, 1974. Decided Nov. 19, Daniel C. Kaufman, Springfield, Va., for petitioner; and Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., Richmond, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner was convicted in a Virginia state court of possession heroin with intent to distribute,1 sentenced eight years prison. The denied review affirmed the conviction by order, petitioner then sought federal habeas corpus District Eastern Virginia. 2 In that he contended judgment under which held subject two constitutional infirmities. His first claim statute had been violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights insofar as it permitted jury base 'solely upon evidence quantity any controlled drug or drugs unlawfully possessed.'2 second admitted at trial obtained result an unlawful search seizure violation Fourth Amendments. 3 Respondent conceded 'exhausted State remedies,' App. 11, but revertheless urged dismiss petition order permit present due process argument courts reconsideration light decision Sharp versus Commonwealth, 213 Va. 269, 192 South Reporter, 2nd 217 (1972). Sharp, decided after declined petitioner's on direct appeal, before filed writ Court,3 § 54—524.101(a) be violative both Federal Constitutions.4 4 ruled against merits search-and-seizure claim, agreed respondent challenge should resubmitted courts. It therefore granted summary favor without passing invalid Amendment.5 5 appealed Appeals Circuit. That court, unreported decision, have opportunity re-examine supra, went hold acted prematurely reaching independent seizure. said: 6 'If relief is will option releasing Francisco retrying him. either event possibility exists this mooted.' 51. 7 vacated portion Court's opinion ruling remanded case instructions prejudice. We certiorari. 415 957, 94 1484, 39 571 (1974). 8 presents contentions here. He contends were wrong requiring him resubmit attack agree point, since we believe proper disposition statutory invalidity Roberts LaVallee, 389 40, 88 194, 19 41 (1967). 9 transcript preliminary hearing because unable pay fee required New York law. When equal protection rejected court. After writ, another found unconstitutional Constitutions. Second Circuit dismissed apply intervening decision. This reversed, saying: 10 'Petitioner has already thoroughly exhausted remedies, recognized. Still more litigation would unnecessarily time-consuming otherwise burdensome. not there substantial interest once again case.' Id., 43, S.Ct., 196. 11 only distinction between here came down whereas issued Court. does alter exhaustion requirement. cases full determine issues resort made forum, policies served requirement furthered resubmission claims courts.6 Roberts, supra; Brown Allen, 344 443, 447—450, 73 397, 402—404, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953); Picard Connor, 404 270, 275, 92 509, 512, 30 438 (1971). 12 question presented '(w)hether person . who (his) custody is, respects, Constitution States, must await one ground merely other courts.' apparently attributes refusal rule its conclusion submit Since need being adjudicated posture no longer framed petitioner, occasion address it. 13 cause proceedings consistent opinion. 14 Reversed remanded. violating Va.Code Ann. 54 524.101(a) (1950). At time charged, provided relevant part: 'Except authorized chapter, shall knowingly intentionally: (1) To distribute, possess .. A may based solely possessed.' repealed. Acts 1972, chapter 798. instructed jury: 'The instructs distribute 19. petition, accompanied motion proceed forma pauperis, actually received October 5, four days decided. On 26 pauperis denied. Upon receipt filing 31, clerk petition. unconstitutionally vague 'a ordinary intelligence marijuana could reasonable certainty know whether guilty misdemeanor mere felony distribute.' 271, S.E.2d, 218. also concluded 'statutory inference presumption did sufficient rational connection fact drug.' Ibid. cited decisions support holding, oral parties rests grounds. We, course, express view correctness holding interpretation Amendment. issue courts, leave reinstitute unless within 45 days. initiate following day, refused file indicated cooperate authorities. are 'in change law cast legal fundamentally different light.' 276, 513,

Classification Label: 0