Search Supreme Court Cases

ENGLE v. SIMS - 450 U.S. 936 (1981)

U.S. Supreme Court

ENGLE v. SIMS , 450 U.S. 936 (1981)

450 U.S. 936

Ted ENGLE, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institute,
James Samuel SIMS
No. 80-472

Supreme Court of the United States

February 23, 1981

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Justice BLACKMUN join, dissenting.

This Court has been asked to review a determination by a Federal Court of Appeals that a state-court murder conviction was obtained in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause

Page 450 U.S. 936 , 937

of the Fifth Amendment. Because I think the conclusion of the Court of Appeals is wrong and has erroneously expanded the role that court was to play in providing habeas corpus review of state-court criminal convictions, I dissent from denial of the petition for certiorari.

On Respondent was taken into custody and brought before the Juvenile Court on March 27, 1962, for a hearing; no transcript or record of that hearing was made. In accordance with then Ohio Rev.Code Ann. 2151.26 ( 1954),* the Juvenile Court decided to bind respondent over to the Criminal Division of the Court of Common Pleas for trial as an adult. This determination was entered on the court's docket as a journal entry which is the only record of what transpired at that hearing. The journal entry reads:

    "TO COURT: This twenty-seventh day of March, 1962, James Samuel Sims, a minor of about the age of seventeen years, came before the Honorable Albert A. Woldman upon the petition of Charles R. Reynolds alleging that James Samuel Sims is a delinquent child in this: [450 U.S. 936 , 938]

    Full Text of Opinion
Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: ENGLE v. SIMS - 450 U.S. 936 (1981)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.