JAMES GRAVES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA, 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 improperly dismissed the habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies when the issue had been presented to the state's highest court on direct appeal.
Petitioner, a state convict, sought federal habeas corpus relief, alleging his Miranda rights were violated by the admission of a taped statement at h…
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 Collateral Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying the petition of Graves, a Louisiana state convict for the writ of habeas corpus. We vacate and remand.
Graves was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On direct appeal the Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed his conviction. State v. Graves, 1971, 259 La. 526, 250 So. 2d 727.
In his habeas petition Graves alleged that a taped statement was improperly admitted into evidence at his trial in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.
The district court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that Graves has not applied for collateral relief in any state court. The district court therefore concluded that federal consideration of the petition was premature on authority of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254.
The district court’s action in dismissing the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies was clearly improper in this case since Graves presented the identical contention to the Supreme Court of Louisiana on his direct appeal. This Court, following Brown v. Allen, 1953, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469, has consistently held that issues presented to the state’s highest court on direct appeal need not be relitigated in state habeas corpus proceedings. Hay v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1972, 467 F. 2d 1388; McCluster v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1972, 453 F. 2d 162; Thomas v. Decker, 5 Cir. 1970, 434 F. 2d 1033.
Graves has exhausted his state remedies as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and he is now entitled to have the district court adjudicate his claim on its merits.
The judgment below is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Vacated and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Singleton v. Estelle, 492 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1953)
- McCLUSTER v. Louie L. Wainwright, 453 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Bella Vista Hotel Apts., Inc. v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 434 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Thomas v. Decker, 434 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1970)
- HAY v. Beto, 467 F.2d 1388 (5th Cir. 1972)