ROBERT T. GRAVETTE, PETITIONER, APPELLANT,
v.
E. L. MAXWELL, WARDEN, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a federal court properly dismissed a habeas corpus petition when the petitioner had not exhausted available state remedies.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to felonious assault and was sentenced. He filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging constitutional violations, but ha…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Delayed Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Robert T. Gravette from an order of the District Court of the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner, indicted by the Grand Jury, entered a plea of guilty in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County to the charge of felonious assault upon a nine year old girl. He was sent to the Lima State Hospital, in accordance with statutory provisions therefor, and upon discharge he was transferred to the Ohio State Penitentiary to serve an indeterminate sentence of from one to ten years. He alleges in his petition that rights guaranteed him under the Federal Constitution have been violated.
The application for writ now before us is the first procedure initiated by him in any court, state or federal. Yet the Constitution of the State of Ohio grants the Supreme Court of that state original jurisdiction in habeas corpus.1 In addition a procedure is available to him for petitioning for a delayed appeal to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County.2
As noted, neither of these remedies has been sought, far less acted upon. This being the case, petitioner is in no position to argue the inadequacy or ineffectiveness 3 of his post-conviction remedies. We are of the opinion that his petition to the District Court was properly dismissed, despite his able appointed counsel’s argument to the contrary. Click v. State of Ohio (C.A.6), 319 F. 2d 855; Saulsbury v. Green (C.A.6), 318 F. 2d 320.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
. See, also, Section 2725.02 of the Ohio Revised Code.
. Section 2953.05, Ohio Revised Code.
. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Logan Peter Rollins v. Haskins, 348 F.2d 454 (6th Cir. 1965)
-
Terrell v. Perini, 414 F.2d 1231 (6th Cir. 1969)
-
Russell v. Maxwell, 348 F.2d 908 (6th Cir. 1965)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Saulsbury v. Lamoyne Green, 318 F.2d 320 (6th Cir. 1963)
- Lopus v. United States Attorney General, 319 F.2d 855 (9th Cir. 1963)
- Click v. State OF Ohio, 319 F.2d 855 (6th Cir. 1963)