TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Charles E. W. Saxton, Sr. v. Wayne K. Patterson, Warden, Colorado State Penitentiary

Charles E. W. SAXTON, Sr., Appellant, v. Wayne K. PATTERSON, Warden, Colorado State Penitentiary, Appellee

Saxton v. Wayne K. Patterson,, Colo. State Penitentiary, 370 F.2d 112 (10th Cir. 1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 16, 1966
Docket
No. 9027
Judges
Pickett, Hickey, Stanley
Citations
370 F.2d 1121966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4013

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Saxton is confined in the Colorado State Penitentiary at Canon City, Colorado, where he is serving sentences imposed in two separate cases. On a plea of guilty to a charge of aggravated robbery, the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, imposed a sentence of four to eight years. On the same day, following a plea of guilty to the crime of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, the District Court of Adams County, Colorado sentenced Saxton to a term of two to ten years, to run concurrently with the Arapahoe County sentence.

The habeas corpus petition filed herein was denied for the reason that available state remedies had not been exhausted.

Rule 35(b) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure provides a method for post-conviction relief to those sentenced by Colorado State Courts which is substantially the same as that of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . Saxton filed motions under the Colorado rules in the sentencing courts. The Arapahoe County District Court denied the motion, and no appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Colorado as authorized by Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure 37 and 39. We have *113 not been advised as to the disposition of the motion in the Adams County District Court.

1

Later Saxton instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the Supreme Court of Colorado, which were dismissed for the reason that habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for review by writ of error. Specht v. Tinsley, 158 Colo. 235 , 385 P.2d 423 ; Henry v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 344 F.2d 109 .

It is apparent that Saxton has not exhausted his state remedies in either of the cases in which he was sentenced.

Affirmed.

1

. The United States District Court’s dismissal order states that the motion in the Adams County District Court is still pending.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1967: 21968: 11969: 219672026peak 1967 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Specht v. Tinsley, 385 P.2d 423 (Colo. 1963) 15
Jere Lane Henry v. Harry C. Tinsley,, Colo. State Penitentiary, 344 F.2d 109 (10th Cir. 1965) 12
Stuckman v. Kasal, 405 P.2d 948 (Colo. 1965) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list