CARL MAIN BENTLEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
CLARENCE JONES, SHERIFF, 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 the district court properly ruled that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
Bentley, convicted of robbery and facing sentence enhancement, sought a free transcript from state courts to challenge the prior conviction. He then f…
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 Federal Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Bentley was convicted of robbery by assault in a Texas state court. His sentence was enhanced to a life term by a prior burglary conviction. Appeal of the more recent conviction is now pending before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Meanwhile as an indigent, Bentley petitioned first the state trial court and later the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for a free transcript of his prior conviction, hoping to use the transcript to demonstrate the constitutional infirmity of the prior conviction and hence its unavailability for enhancement purposes. To date there has been no ruling on these petitions according to the record before us.
Bentley next sought relief1 in the district court on the grounds that his equal protection and due process rights have been denied by the state’s failure to provide the requested transcript. The district court properly ruled that he has failed to exhaust his state remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The transcript question may yet be adequately resolved by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals when it considers the pending appeal. Bryant v. Bailey, 464 F. 2d 560 (5th Cir. 1972) ; Williams v. Bailey, 463 F. 2d 247 (5th Cir. 1972) ; Kirby v. Sutton, 436 F. 2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1971); Haggard v. Tennessee, 421 F. 2d 1384 (6th Cir. 1970). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. Bentley’s pro se petition is inartfully drawn but he sought an order from the district court directing the state trial court to furnish him with a trial transcript. We have considered his pleading as in the nature of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Haggard v. State OF Tenn. & Honorable Joseph D. Duncan, 421 F.2d 1384 (6th Cir. 1970)
- Wayland Bryant v. Mel Bailey, 464 F.2d 560 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Kirby v. Sutton, 436 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Boysen v. Treadway INN OF Lake Harmony, Inc., 463 F.2d 247 (3d Cir. 1972)