UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. KENNETH HEADLEY, BOBBY SAMS AND CHARLES HUNTLEY, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS,
v.
VINCENT R. MANCUSI, WARDEN, ATTICA PRISON, ATTICA, NEW YORK, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
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 petitioners must seek relief in the state courts of New York regarding their Bruton claims.
Petitioners, New York State prisoners, sought to amend their habeas corpus petitions to add claims under Bruton v. United States and Roberts v. Russel…
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 Exhaustion Of State Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The habeas corpus petitions of these New York State prisoners serving sentences for robbery in the first degree were consolidated for consideration by the district court.
Petitioners moved for permission to amend their petitions by adding claims under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) and Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1968). Their motion was denied and they appeal.
Ordinarily we would be unwilling to entertain an appeal from such an order, since there are still pending before the district court a number of other claims of petitioners. However, in view of our determination that petitioners must seek relief in the state courts of New York, we believe that we would not be justified in imposing upon them the delay which would be involved in returning them to the district court for a complete consideration of their petitions before accepting the appeal.
On the Bruton issue itself, we affirm the determination of the district court requiring the petitioners to exhaust the New York State remedy available to them under People v. Pohl, 23 N.Y.2d 290, 296 N.Y.S.2d 352, 244 N.E. 2d 47 (1968). See United States ex rel. Smith v. Follette, 405 F. 2d 1199 (2d Cir. 1969); United States ex rel. Sloan v. McMann, 415 F. 2d 275 (2d Cir. 1969).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States ex rel. Joel Smith v. Montanye, 505 F.2d 1355 (2d Cir. 1974)
-
Bermudez v. Smith, 797 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1986)
Authorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1968)
- United States ex rel. Clarence Lee Sloan v. McMANN, 415 F.2d 275 (2d Cir. 1969)
- United States ex rel. Preston Smith v. Hon. Harold W. Follette, 405 F.2d 1199 (2d Cir. 1969)