MCARTHUR HARRIS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA, 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 prisoner is not required to appeal a denial of coram nobis relief in state court to exhaust state remedies for federal habeas corpus.
Appellant's state coram nobis petition was denied, and he failed to appeal within the six-month period. He then filed a federal habeas corpus petition…
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 Coram Nobis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief to a prisoner of the State of Alabama, without an evidentiary hearing, on grounds of failure to exhaust state remedies.1 We vacate the judgment below and remand the case.2
The appellant was convicted of robbery upon trial by jury. The judgment was affirmed upon direct appeal. Harris v. State, 1968, 44 Ala.App. 449, 212 So. 2d 695, cert. den. 282 Ala. 726, 212 So. 2d 704.
Appellant then filed a petition in his trial court for coram nobis relief, which was denied on December 31, 1968. The appellant had six months thereafter in which to take an appeal, but he did not do so. Instead, on July 7, 1969, he filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court, which is the subject of this appeal.
The district court denied the habeas corpus petition stating: “Exhaustion of state remedies requires an appeal from a trial court denial on an application for a writ of error coram nobis”. We are of the opinion that the district court erred in denying the petition on the grounds of failure to exhaust state remedies. The appellant is now, and has been since the lapse of six months from the denial of his first petition for coram nobis relief on December 31, 1968, entirely without any effective remedy in the courts of Alabama.
This court has previously considered the exhaustion principles and the effectiveness of refiling a petition for eoram nobis relief in the Alabama courts. Bell v. State of Alabama, 5 Cir., 1966, 367 F. 2d 243, and Lizana v. State of Alabama, 5 Cir., 1968, 394 F. 2d 512. Under the teachings of these cases, an evidentiary hearing is required even though petitioner failed to appeal from the denial of his coram nobis petition within the six-months-period.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254.
. 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 case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F. 2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F. 2d 526, Part I.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State OF Ala., 530 F.2d 1231 (5th Cir. 1976)
-
Harris Percy Wynn v. Smith, 446 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
Hairston v. State OF Ala., 465 F.2d 675 (5th Cir. 1972)
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
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Huth v. S. Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Cecal Bell v. State OF Ala., 367 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Lizana v. State OF Ala., 394 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1968)