Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Hysaw Vs. Estelle

Hysaw vs Estelle

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1973
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/103427

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
414 U.S. 1030
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hysaw

Respondent

Estelle

Excerpt

.....sought state habeas corpus, claiming that, since both charges arose out of the same criminal transaction, his second conviction for theft violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. petitioner's application was denied by the 179th district court of harris county and the texas court of criminal appeal. respondent's brief in opposition, p. 2, conceded that the charges of burglary and theft arose out of the same criminal transaction. that, in my opinion, requires that we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse, for i adhere to the view that the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment, which is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment, benton v. maryland, 395 u.s. 784 ( 1969), requires the prosecution, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, 'to join at one trial all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction.' ashe v. swenson, 397 u.s. 436 , 453-454, 25 l. ed.2d 469 (1970) (concurring opinion); see miller v. oregon, 405 u.s. 1047 (1972) (dissenting opinion); page 414 u.s. 1030 , 1031 harris v. washington, 404 u.s. 55, 57 (1971) ( concurring opinion); waller v. florida, 397 u.s. 387, 395 (1970) (concurring opinion).

Full Judgment

HYSAW v. ESTELLE - 414 U.S. 1030 (1973)
U.S. Supreme Court HYSAW v. ESTELLE , 414 U.S. 1030 (1973)

414 U.S. 1030

Willie Clarence HYSAW
v.
W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
No. 72-6785.

Supreme Court of the United States

November 12, 1973

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.

Petitioner was sentenced to eight years imprisonment upon his plea of guilty to a charge of burglary. Later on the same day, the same conduct was the basis of a charge of theft for which he received a consecutive eight-year sentence when he also pleaded guilty to that charge. Although neither conviction was directly appealed, petitioner sought state habeas corpus, claiming that, since both charges arose out of the same criminal transaction, his second conviction for theft violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Petitioner's application was denied by the 179th District Court of Harris County and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal.

Respondent's Brief in opposition, p. 2, conceded that the charges of burglary and theft arose out of the same criminal transaction. That, in my opinion, requires that we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse, for I adhere to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 ( 1969), requires the prosecution, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, 'to join at one trial all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction.' Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 453-454, 25 L. Ed.2d 469 (1970) (concurring opinion); see Miller v. Oregon, 405 U.S. 1047 (1972) (dissenting opinion);

Page 414 U.S. 1030 , 1031

Harris v. Washington, 404 U.S. 55, 57 (1971) ( concurring opinion); Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 395 (1970) (concurring opinion).

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial