James E. Drury v. William Coy Cox, Sheriff of Pima County
James E. DRURY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William Coy COX, Sheriff of Pima County, Respondent-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
The district court considered the issue in this case to be whether the evidence at a preliminary hearing before an Arizona State Magistrate was sufficient to establish probable cause to bind Drury over for trial on an open charge of murder, degree unspecified. The Arizona Supreme Court held the evidence sufficient. Drury v. Burr, 107 Ariz. 124 , 483 P.2d 539 (1971). The district court, after an independent review of the record, agreed and denied Drury’s petition for habeas corpus without a hearing. Drury appeals, claiming that his detention for trial amounted to a denial of due process because of lack of probable cause.
We affirm on different grounds. Our reading of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 , convinces us that only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, *765 judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts. Apparent finality of one issue is not enough.
The order denying relief is affirmed.
The mandate will issue now.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 29 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(stating that only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant 4 entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until 5 after a judgment has been appealed from, and the case has been concluded in state 6 courts)
-
(“Apparent finality of one issue is not 9 enough” to avoid dismissal under Younger where the judgment itself is not final)
-
(exhaustion of federal issue insufficient if criminal proceedings through direct appeal not yet complete)
Cited by 137 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.