Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Ivery Sweezy v. Sam P. Garrison, Warden and State of North Carolina

Ivery Sweezy v. Sam P. Garrison, Warden & State of N.C., 694 F.2d 331 (4th Cir. 1982)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1982-12-06
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM: Ivery Sweezy appeals from a decision of the district court, 554 F.Supp. 481, dismissing on the merits his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Although the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies, the Attorney General of North Carolina unconditionally waived, in his responsive pleadings, the exhaustion requirement. It therefore is appropriate for us to consider the merits of petitioner’s appeal. Jenkins v. Fitzberger, 440 F.2d 1188 (4th Cir.1971); cf.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ivery Sweezy v. Sam P. Garrison, Warden and State of North Carolina. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
25 opinions
SWEEZY v. GARRISON,694 F.2d 331(4th Cir. 1982)
IVERY SWEEZY, APPELLANT, v. SAM P. GARRISON, WARDEN AND STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, APPELLEES.
No. 82-6352.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued November 9, 1982.
Decided December 6, 1982.
Gary S. Cash, Asheville, N.C. (Whalen, Hay Cash, Asheville, N.C., Charles T.L. Anderson, Apex, N.C., N.C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. on brief), for appellant.

Richard N. League, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N.C. (Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen. of North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C., on brief), for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville; Woodrow Wilson Jones, Chief Judge.
Before WIDENER and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and GORDON,fn*Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Ivery Sweezy appeals from a decision of the district court,554 F. Supp. 481, dismissing on the merits his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Although the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies, the Attorney General of North Carolina unconditionally waived, in his responsive pleadings, the exhaustion requirement. It therefore is appropriate for us to consider the merits of petitioner's appeal.Jenkins v.Fitzberger,440 F.2d 1188(4th Cir. 1971); cf.Harding v. NorthCarolina,683 F.2d 850(4th Cir. 1982) (holding invalid conditional waiver of exhaustion).

[2] The petitioner claimed that the trial court's failure to hold a hearing during the trial on petitioner's competency to stand trial denied him due process of law. The petitioner also claimed that trial counsel's failure to move for such a competency hearing denied him effective assistance of counsel. For the reasons stated by the district court, we find the petitioner's claims to be without merit.

[3] The judgment of the district court is accordingly

[4] AFFIRMED.Page 953
  1. United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation. ↩