Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • John Dunn v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 357 F.2d 491, 4th Cir. (1966)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is a court case summary that: 1) John Dunn appealed his conviction and $10 fine for disorderly conduct in Richmond, Virginia. At a trial de novo, the fine was increased to $25, which Dunn paid. He later received retrials and still has a pending petition. 2) Dunn filed a lawsuit in US District Court seeking return of the fine paid, a declaration that he was denied due process, and that the fine violated his 8th Amendment rights. 3) The District Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the relief sought. It also stated that even if treated as a collateral attack, it must be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1966-03-10 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 357 F.2d 491 Docket: 10211

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court case summary that: 1) John Dunn appealed his conviction and $10 fine for disorderly conduct in Richmond, Virginia. At a trial de novo, the fine was increased to $25, which Dunn paid. He later received retrials and still has a pending petition. 2) Dunn filed a lawsuit in US District Court seeking return of the fine paid, a declaration that he was denied due process, and that the fine violated his 8th Amendment rights. 3) The District Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the relief sought. It also stated that even if treated as a collateral attack, it must be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    John Dunn v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 357 F.2d 491, 4th Cir. (1966)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary that: 1) John Dunn appealed his conviction and $10 fine for disorderly conduct in Richmond, Virginia. At a trial de novo, the fine was increased to $25, which Dunn paid. He later received retrials and still has a pending petition. 2) Dunn filed a lawsuit in US District Court seeking return of the fine paid, a declaration that he was denied due process, and that the fine violated his 8th Amendment rights. 3) The District Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the relief sought. It also stated that even if treated as a collateral attack, it must be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    357 F.

    2d 491

    John DUNN, Appellant,


    v.
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Appellee.
    No. 10211.

    United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.


    Argued Feb. 11, 1966.
    Decided March 10, 1966.

    John Dunn, pro se.


    Reno S. Harp, III Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia (Robert Y. Button, Atty.
    Gen. of Virginia, and Jamea Parker Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia, on
    brief), for appellee.
    Before SOBELOFF, BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    After being convicted of disorderly conduct and fined $10 in a Richmond,


    Virginia, police court, appellant had a trial de novo in the Hustings Court Part 2
    of Richmond. There the Fine was increased to $25, which was promptly paid.
    Later the appellant had a retrial in the Hustings Court, and he still has a pending
    petition for another retrial. Throughtout those proceedings he was represented
    by counsel retained by him. Before the state court disposed of his second
    motion for retrial, he brought an action in the United States District Court for
    the following relief: an order requiring the Commonwealth of Virginia to return
    the fine paid by him; a declaration that he has been denied due process of law; a
    declaration that the fine paid by him was excessive and violative of his rights
    under the Eighth Amendment.

    1, 2$ The District Court dismissed on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to


    grant the relief sought in the complaint. The District Court also stated that, even
    if the complaint were treated as a collateral attack on the criminal proceeding, it
    must be dismissed because appellant has not exhausted available state
    remedies.

    We affirm.

    You might also like