THOMAS R. PRINCE, 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 federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is premature if the petitioner's conviction is still on direct appeal in the state court system.
Thomas R. Prince filed a second habeas corpus petition alleging denial of speedy trial rights. His conviction, the subject of the prior petition, is c…
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is another appeal by Thomas R. Prince from the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition. As in his former petition filed in November 1971, Prince alleges that he has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. This court affirmed the dismissal of his previous petition on the jurisdictional ground that at the time of filing Prince was not in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court as required for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Prince v. Bailey, 464 F. 2d 544 (5th Cir. 1972).
While Prince has now been convicted and sentenced to serve a term of 20 years on the robbery charges which were the subject of his former habeas proceedings, this second petition for relief is still premature. His conviction is on direct appeal in the state court system of Alabama.1 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c) make it crystal clear that courts of the United States are bound to refrain from exercising their power under § 2254 so long as a petitioner has any effective right to obtain relief from constitutional errors under remedies provided by the courts of the state ordering his custody.
The district court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief and, therefore, the denial of the writ is
Affirmed.
. An appeal from his conviction was docketed April 20, 1972, in the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, from whence no decision has yet issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prince v. State OF Ala., 507 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Prince v. Bailey, 464 F.2d 544 (5th Cir. 1972)