WILLIAM GLENN DENNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, ITS AGENT, SHERIFF DAYTON EVANS, CHEROKEE COUNTY, COLUMBUS, KANSAS, 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 habeas corpus petition was properly denied for failure to exhaust available state remedies, even when the prisoner claims relief under the Civil Rights Act.
Denney was convicted in state court and sentenced to 40 years. He sought federal habeas corpus relief, which was denied by the federal district court …
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 Summary Calendar cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On December 9, 1969, the District Court of Cherokee County, Kansas imposed a forty (40) year sentence after Denney was convicted on charges of second-degree burglary and grand larceny. The direct appeal is now pending in the Kansas Supreme Court.
The federal district court denied habeas corpus relief for failure to exhaust available state remedies. We agree. This court has held that state remedies cannot be exhausted if an appeal from a state conviction is pending. Kessinger v. Page, 369 F. 2d 799 (10th Cir. 1966) and Lee v. State of Kansas, 346 F. 2d 48 (10th Cir. 1965). He must thereafter also initiate state postconviction relief pursuant to K.S.A. § 60-1507. Brown v. Crouse, 395 F. 2d 755 (10th Cir. 1968) and Omo v. Crouse, 395 F. 2d 757 (10th Cir. 1968).
We find no merit in Denney’s attempt to show that available state remedies were not available when this petition was filed for he had not yet been sentenced. He also claims that the exhaustion requirement is inapplicable since the relief he seeks is allegedly pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have found no reference to that Act in the record. Regardless, the Civil Rights statute cannot be used by a state prisoner to circumvent the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Smartt v. Avery, 411 F. 2d 408 (6th Cir. 1969).
Our initial review of this case prompted us to assign it to the Summary Calendar because of the unsubstantial issue presented. In addition, the appellee has filed a motion to affirm. A consideration of Denney's memorandum addressing the underlying merits, along with a thorough review of the files and record in this cause, convinces us that the judgment of the district court is correct and should be affirmed.
Accordingly, the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hamrick v. Mr. Frank C. Norton, 436 F.2d 940 (10th Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Kessinger v. Page, 369 F.2d 799 (10th Cir. 1966)
- United States v. Sterling, 369 F.2d 799 (3d Cir. 1966)
- Le Roy St. Clair Brown, Jr. v. Crouse, 395 F.2d 755 (10th Cir. 1968)
- LEE v. State OF Kan., 346 F.2d 48 (10th Cir. 1965)
- Smartt v. Avery, 411 F.2d 408 (6th Cir. 1969)
- OMO v. Crouse, 395 F.2d 757 (10th Cir. 1968)