Edward Stanley Wadley v. People of the State of California, Louis S. Nelson, Warden, San Quentin State Prison

Appellant Wadley was denied a writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction on the basis of McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131 , 55 S.Ct. 24 , 79 L.Ed. 238 . Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 , 61 S.Ct. 640 , 85 L.Ed. 1034 , and the exception to McNally enunciated there, were found inapplicable because Wadley’s parole on the prior conviction was not revoked solely because of the later conviction which he now attacks. Of course, the Supreme Court has overruled McNally. Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 . The first issue presented is whether Peyton should be applied retroactively to render jurisdiction in the court below.

In Peyton, the Chief Justice said for the unanimous Court:

391 U.S. at 55 , 88 S.Ct. at 1550 . There is no problem raised in applying this holding retroactively. Where retroactivity of a constitutional decision has been denied, the newly-enunciated rule is usually remedial, as where the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment is extended. See Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1048 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 . Here sound court administration militates in favor of disposing of…