Citation network
Oyler Vs. Boles
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 19, 1962
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
-
U.S. 448 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Oyler v. BolesSearch
-
U.S. 448 (1962) Oyler v. BolesSearch
-
in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Both of their petitions were denied without opinion. Unlike Chewning v. CunninghamSearch
-
of the determination of guilt on the underlying substantive offense. Chandler v. FretagSearch
-
Graham v. WestSearch
-
See Graham v. WestSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
given prior to the trial on the substantive offense. Such requirements are implicit within our decisions in Chewning v. CunninghamSearch
-
habitual criminal law, this statute contemplates valid convictions which have not been subsequently nullified. Graham v. WestSearch
-
their prior offenses. This does not deny equal protection due petitioners under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Sanders v. WatersSearch
-
Oregon v. HicksSearch
-
classification. Therefore, grounds supporting a finding of a denial of equal protection were not alleged. Oregon v. HicksSearch
-
Snowden v. HughesSearch
-
Together with No. 57, Crabtree v. BoleSearch
-
the previous convictions be such that imprisonment in a penitentiary could have been imposed. State ex rel. Johnson v. SkeenSearch
-
E.g., Moore v. MissouriSearch
-
being prosecuted for a substantive offense. In 1912, this Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute. Graham v. WestSearch
-
West Virginia v. BlankenshipSearch
-
reflect the exercise of such discretion. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. I join the Court's opinion in Oyler v. BolesSearch
-
and Crabtree v. BolesSearch
-
Nos. 56 and 57, and concur in the result in Chewning v. CunninghamSearch
-
Williams v. NewSearch
-
strikes down the enhanced sentence, despite the apparent similarity between this claim and the one rejected in Gryger v. BurkeSearch
-
which, under existing law, e.g., Betts v. BradySearch
-
West Virginia might make that an adequate state ground, though it should be noted in passing that the court in Rhea v. EdwardsSearch
-
though Page 368 U. S. 461 the accused apparently had not made this an issue at the trial. Cf. Terminiello v. ChicagoSearch
-
in order to comport with due process. Chandler v. FretagSearch
-
of an opportunity for an accused to retain a lawyer to represent him deprives him of due process. And see Chewning v. CunninghamSearch
-
of due process. Denial or absence of counsel is an issue raisable on collateral attack of state judgments. Williams v. KaiserSearch
-
omission of formal notice has been held fatal in proceedings under recidivist statutes. United States ex rel. Collins v. ClaudySearch
-
Edwards v. RheaSearch
-
given far enough in advance to allow for an opportunity to defend. A 9-day notice was deemed adequate in Johnson v. KansasSearch
-
and assertable by habeas corpus in Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Any contrary implications from Graham v. WestSearch
-
that the broadening reach of constitutional issues raisable by state habeas corpus followed our decision in Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
supra, note 1. Graham v. WestSearch
-
broadening attack on state court judgments on constitutional grounds in collateral proceedings started with Chambers v. FloridaSearch
-
U. S. 227 . And see Smith v. O'GradySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Oyler v. BolesSearch
-
Unlike Chewning v. CunninghamSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment. See Sanders v. WatersSearch
-
Crabtree v. BoleSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial