TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Linnus Harrison v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

Linnus HARRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee

Linnus Harrison v. Wainwright, 424 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1970)
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
May 4, 1970
Docket
No. 28974
Judges
Brown, Morgan, Ingraham
Citations
424 F.2d 633

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an or-order of the district court denying for failure to exhaust state remedies, the petition of a Florida convict for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

1

Appellant, represented by privately-retained counsel, was tried on an indictment charging second degree murder and convicted of manslaughter. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

In his petition in the court below, appellant set out numerous allegations as grounds for habeas corpus relief. A review of the record reveals that appellant has failed to present to any state court the allegations of ineffective representation of defense counsel and of admission into evidence of coerced incriminating statements. Although appellant has exhausted his state remedies as to the other issues offered in his petition, rules of comity dictate that state remedies be exhausted as to all issues raised in a petition for habeas corpus to a federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ; Wheeler v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1969, 407 F.2d 816 . The judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to 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 ease 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; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5th Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526 . Part I.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 21 cases

View all citing references →
1970: 41971: 111972: 21973: 21974: 219702026peak 1971 · 11

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
Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., & Eva C. Fontenot, 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969) 443
Huth v. Southern Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969) 281
Wheeler v. Beto, 407 F.2d 816 (5th Cir. 1969) 33

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