JOHN OMO, APPELLANT,
v.
SHERMAN H. CROUSE, WARDEN, KANSAS STATE PENITENTIARY, 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 the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies, and the trial court properly refused to consider the petition on that basis.
Petitioner sought federal habeas corpus relief, alleging constitutional violations previously considered by the Kansas Supreme Court on direct appeal.…
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 Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
SETH, Circuit Judge.
This is a companion case to Brown v. Crouse, No. 9669, 10 Cir., 395 F. 2d 755, and was heard with it.
The petitioner Omo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the United States District Court for the District of Kansas seeking his release from the Kansas State Penitentiary. He asserted several violations of his rights under the Constitution of the United States. These issues had been considered by the Kansas Supreme Court on appellant’s direct appeal from his conviction. State v. Omo, 199 Kan. 167, 428 P. 2d 768. Petitioner urges that under Miles v. State, 195 Kan. 516, 407 P. 2d 507, the Kansas Supreme Court has adopted a rule that it is not error for the trial court to dismiss post conviction motions which raise “trial errors” passed upon by the Kansas Supreme Court on the direct appeal of movant’s conviction. Appellant thus asserts that it would be futile for him to seek state post conviction relief, and relies on our recent case of Wood v. Crouse, February 9, 1968, 389 F. 2d 747 (10th Cir.).
We find that Wood v. Crouse is not applicable here for the reasons we stated in our opinion filed in the case which is the companion to the one at bar. Brown v. Crouse, No. 9669, 395 F. 2d 755 (10th Cir.).
The exhaustion of state remedies issue was properly determined by the trial court to be a proper reason to refuse to consider appellant’s petition, and for the reasons set out in our opinion in Brown v. Crouse, supra.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rito G. Canales v. Baker, 406 F.2d 685 (10th Cir. 1969)
-
Capps v. Patterson, 398 F.2d 345 (10th Cir. 1968)
-
Sandoval v. Rodriguez, 461 F.2d 1097 (10th Cir. 1972)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Le Roy St. Clair Brown, Jr. v. Crouse, 395 F.2d 755 (10th Cir. 1968)
- Wood v. Crouse, 389 F.2d 747 (10th Cir. 1968)