1. Where there has been a trial for a statutory offense in a
state court having jurisdiction, and conviction has been affirmed
by the Supreme Court of the State, the party convicted has no
federal right to attack the judgment collaterally in the state
courts by raising in habeas corpus a federal question concerning
the validity of the statute defining the offense which was not
raised, but could have been raised, in the earlier proceedings. P.
299 U. S. 2.
2. An appeal from a state court will be dismissed if it does not
appear that the decision complained of was not based upon an
adequate nonfederal ground.
Id.
Appeal dismissed.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant brought this proceeding in the Supreme Court of
Colorado to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied
without opinion. It appears that appellant was held pursuant to
conviction for violation
Page 299 U. S. 2
of § 2676, C.L.1921, being § 40, c. 44, Sess.Laws
1913, of the laws of Colorado (
see also § 2740,
C.L.1921, being § 85, chapter 44 of Session Laws of 1913), the
judgment of conviction having been affirmed by the Supreme Court of
the state.
Woolsey v. People, 98 Colo. 62, 53 P.2d
596.
It is well established that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be
used as a writ of error. This is the rule in Colorado as well as in
this Court. The judgment of conviction was not subject to
collateral attack.
People ex rel. Burchinell v. District
Court, 22 Colo. 422, 45 P. 402;
Martin v. District
Court, 37 Colo. 110, 115, 86 P. 82;
Chemgas v. Tynan,
51 Colo. 35, 116 P. 1045;
In re Arakawa, 78 Colo.193, 196,
240 P. 940;
In re Nottingham, 84 Colo. 123, 128, 268 P.
587.
Compare Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U.
S. 442;
Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U.
S. 333;
Craig v. Hecht, 263 U.
S. 255,
263 U. S. 277;
Knewel v. Egan, 268 U. S. 442,
268 U. S.
445-446;
Cox v. Colorado, 282 U.S. 807. It is
apparent from the record submitted that the state court had
jurisdiction to try the appellant for violation of the statute in
question and that any federal question properly raised as to the
validity of the statute could have been heard and determined on
appeal to this Court from the final judgment in that action. The
Supreme Court of the state was not required by the Federal
Constitution to entertain such questions on the subsequent petition
for habeas corpus, and it does not appear that its denial of the
petition did not rest upon an adequate nonfederal ground.
Lynch
v. New York, 293 U. S. 52, and
cases there cited. The appeal is dismissed for the want of
jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
