UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. SAMUEL MILLER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION, 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 habeas corpus petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court challenging his state murder conviction. The district court dismissed the petition without …
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 Waiver Of Speedy Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Miller filed in the district court a habeas corpus petition attacking his Florida 1976 nonjury murder trial and conviction. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, Miller v. State, 343 So. 2d 1292 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.), cert. denied, 352 So. 2d 173 (Fla.S.Ct. 1977). In his petition he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, involuntary waiver of jury trial, involuntary waiver of speedy trial, involuntary withdrawal of guilty plea, improperly admitted evidence, impropriety of the judge in withholding his knowledge of legal precedents, and denial of his right against self-incrimination.
The district court dismissed Miller’s petition without prejudice because he had not exhausted in state courts the issues of ineffective assistance of retained counsel, waiver of jury trial, waiver of speedy trial, and withdrawal of a guilty plea to manslaughter. In order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, it is not necessary to present collaterally to the Florida courts the issue of ineffective assistance of privately retained counsel, the law of the State affording no relief. See Perez v. Wainwright, 594 F. 2d 159 (5th Cir. 1979); United States ex rel. Reis v. Wainwright, 525 F. 2d 1269 (5th Cir. 1976).
Miller offers a long discussion concerning the treatment which he anticipates a Florida court will give his other claims. The law of Florida does not, however, demonstrate that the assertion of such claims has been foreclosed by the Supreme Court of Florida precedent. The dismissal of his mixed petition must, therefore, be affirmed. See Galtieri v. Wainwright, 582 F. 2d 348, 355, 362 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
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)
- Gennero Galtieri v. Louie L. Wainwright, 582 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States ex rel. Lillian Reis v. Louie L. Wainwright, 525 F.2d 1269 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Miller v. State, 343 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Perez v. Louie L. Wainwright, 594 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1979)