Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Clifton A. Pearce, Appellee, v. State of North Carolina and Warden R. L. Turner, Appellants
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. - 397 F.2d 253
Submitted June 10, 1968.Decided June 19, 1968, Certiorari Granted Oct. 28, 1968, See89 S.Ct. 258
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen. of North Carolina, Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., and Dale Shepherd, Staff Attorneys, Office of Attorney General of North Carolina, on brief for appellants.
Larry B. Sitton, Greensboro, N.C. (Court-assigned counsel) and Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter, Greensbor,
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BRYAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The district court issued a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the release of petitioner for the reason that he had served the maximum term imposed on him at his original trial notwithstanding that on retrial, after successful post-conviction attack, he was sentenced to a longer term. The action was taken on the authority of our decision in Patton v. State of North Carolina, 381 F.2d 636 (4 Cir. 1967), cert. den., North Carolina v. Patton, 390 U.S. 905, 88 S.Ct. 818, 19 L.Ed. 871 (1968).
In this appeal, the State of North Carolina frankly asks us to reconsider our decision in Patton in the light of cases considered therein which reached a contrary conclusion and subsequent decisions which have failed to follow it. This we decline to do; and because the issue on appeal is so narrow, we concluded to dispense with oral argument.
On the authority of Patton, the order of the district court is
Affirmed.