TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Julius Dwaine Perry, Sr. v. James E. (Bill) Decker, Sheriff, Dallas County, Texas

Julius Dwaine PERRY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. (Bill) DECKER, Sheriff, Dallas County, Texas, Defendant-Appellee

Perry v. James E. (Bill) Decker,, Dallas Cnty., Tex., 415 F.2d 773 (5th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 5, 1969
Docket
No. 27757_1
Judges
Coleman, Simpson, Carswell
Citations
415 F.2d 7731969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10896

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804 , Part I.

This is the appeal of a Texas state prisoner, from a judgment denying his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

The appellant is presently confined by authority of convictions for murder with malice and passing a worthless check. His direct appeals are pending in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

In his pro se brief filed in this appeal, the appellant states that the only issue presented for review is as to the constitutionality of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. That statute provides post-indictment and post-conviction habeas corpus remedies. See Texas v. Payton, 5th Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 261 ; Ex parte Young, Tex.Cr.App. 1967, 418 S.W.2d 824 .

The district court held that federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable to the appellant because he has not exhausted his available state remedies, particularly, his remedy of direct appeal. We agree. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ; Martinez v. Craven, 9th Cir. 1968, 397 F.2d 256 ; see Texas v. Payton, supra; Bruce v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 212 ; United States ex rel. Heirens v. Pate, 7th Cir. 1967, 401 F.2d 147 .

The judgment of the district court denying the writ of habeas corpus without prejudice is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1970: 31971: 31972: 11973: 11977: 119702026peak 1970 · 3

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
State of Tex. & Dr. George J. Beto, Dir., Tex. Dep't of Corr. v. Payton, 390 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1968) 106
Ex Parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) 7,857
Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., & Eva C. Fontenot, 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969) 443
Bruce v. Beto, 396 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1968) 18
United States ex rel. William Heirens v. Frank J. Pate,, Ill. State Penitentiary, 401 F.2d 147 (7th Cir. 1967) 5
Martinez v. Craven, 397 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1968) 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