216 F.2d 188 - Ferguson v. Manning — 216 F.2d 188

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently October 1980

14 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1C. T. Graydon, Columbia, S. C. (Hugh McAulay, Charlotte, N. C.) on the brief), for appellant.

¶2William A. Dallis, Asst. Atty. Gen., of South Carolina (T. C. Callison, AttyGen. of South Carolina, on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and HOFFMAN, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is an appeal from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner incarcerated under- the judgment and sentence of a court of the State of South Carolina. Petitioner was convicted under two counts of an indictment one of which charged conspiracy to set up a .numbers lottery and the other the actual setting up of the lottery. He was given a sentence of three years imprispn.ment and a fine under the conspiracy count and a sentence of one year and a fine under the cpunt charging the substantive offense. - On appeal to the Supreme Court, of the state, he contended that the law of the state did not authorize his conviction under the conspiracy count and that, in any event, imprisonment under that count could not exceed the term authorized for the substantive offense. The questions thus raised were squarely decided against appellant by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. State v. Ferguson, 221 S.C. 300, 70 S.E.2d 355. Nevertheless these are the questions and the only questions raised on the application to the court below for the writ of habeas corpus or on the appeal from the order of that court denying the writ.

¶6We think that the writ was properly denied. It is too well settled to admit of argument that the federal courts are bound by the interpretation placed upon the statutes of a state by its highest court; and the only questions raised by the application for the writ are questions of this character which the Supreme Court of South Carolina has decided. Under such circumstances it was not incumbent on the court below to issue the writ. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 458, 73 S.Ct. 397, 407, 97 L.Ed. 469.

¶7Affirmed.