HENRY WALKER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER ZANT, WARDEN, GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC AND CLASSIFICATION CENTER, DEFENDANT-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 court may grant habeas corpus relief if the petitioner has raised the same issues on direct appeal in state court, as this satisfies the exhaustion requirement.
Henry Walker, convicted of a drug offense, filed a federal habeas petition after his state appeals were unsuccessful. The district court dismissed the…
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 Mixed Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge:
Henry Walker is currently an inmate of the Georgia penal system. He was convicted of violating the Georgia Controlled Substance Act and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment and immediately upon his release, to fifteen years probation. After his conviction, Walker appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals where he unsuccessfully urged that his appointed counsel did not have sufficient time to prepare for trial, that the trial court erred by refusing to grant the defendant a continuance, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The court of appeals affirmed. 157 Ga.App. 484, 277 S.E. 2d 740 (1981): The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion for reconsideration in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 286 S.E. 2d 425 (1981).
The court of appeals again affirmed, finding that a rational trier of fact could have reasonably found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, 158 Ga.App. 306, 280 S.E. 2d 438 (1981) and the Georgia Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Walker filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Butts County, Georgia which the court dismissed on Walker’s request. Walker then filed this habeas petition in federal district court alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his state court trial because his appointed counsel did not have a reasonable time in which to prepare for trial and because the trial court refused to grant a continuance. The district court dismissed the petition finding that if Walker had a habeas corpus application pending in the Superior Court of Butts County, the federal petition would be premature.- If the petitioner did not have an application pending in state court, the court stated, he had not exhausted available state remedies. We reverse.
A federal court will not grant habeas corpus relief to a person held in custody pursuant to a state court judgment unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted remedies available to him in the state courts. Bufalino v. Reno, 613 F. 2d 568, 570 (5th Cir.1980); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) (1976).
The exhaustion requirement, however, does not require the prisoner to seek collateral review from the state judiciary of the same issues already raised on direct appeal. Cobb v. Wainwright, 666 F. 2d 966, 969 n. 3 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2906, 73 L.Ed.2d 1315 (1982); Burton v. Oliver, 599 F. 2d 49, 50 (5th Cir.1979).
In the case at bar, Walker raises the same issues in his habeas petition that he included in his direct appeal in state court. See Walker v. State, 157 Ga.App. 484, 277 S.E. 2d 740, vacated and remanded, 248 Ga. 808, 286 S.E. 2d 425, aff’d, 158 Ga. App. 306, 280 S.E. 2d 438 (1981).
Therefore, he has exhausted his state remedies on these issues for the purpose of filing a federal habeas petition.
On the same day the district court issued its order, Walker filed a proposed amendment to his application for habeas corpus. The amendment contains several additional arguments for habeas relief that were apparently not litigated in state court.
The record does not contain an order by the district court allowing this amendment. The claims raised in this amendment and supplemental brief do not appear to be part of the original petition. If Walker persists in raising these claims, he may convert his application into a “mixed petition” — a petition that asserts both exhausted and unex-hausted claims. If the application is a “mixed petition,” the district court should dismiss the petition leaving Walker with the choice of returning to state court to exhaust his claims, amending the application, or resubmitting the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims to the district court. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982).
The decision of the district court is REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)…from custody on the ground that his conviction or sentence is in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States must first exhaust remedies available to him in the courts of the convicting state. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Walker v. Zant, 693 F. 2d 1087 (11th Cir.1983); Bufalino v. Reno, 613 F. 2d 568 (5th Cir.1980). The requirement is a “codification of the federal judicial policy designed ‘to effect a proper balance between the roles of the state and federal judicial institutions in protecting fe…
-
Buck v. Green, 743 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1984)…t’s dismissal of his state habeas petition. However, the exhaustion requirement imposed by-28 U.S.C. § 2254 does not require a state prisoner to seek collateral review from the state courts of issues already raised on direct appeal. Walker v. Zant, 693 F. 2d 1087, 1088 (11th Cir.1982). Thus, an issue which has been raised on direct appeal in state proceedings can serve as the basis for a federal habeas petition, provided, of course, that the petition does not assert exhausted and unexhausted claims. Id. The…
-
Georgalis v. Dist. Attorney Donnie Dixon, 776 F.2d 261 (11th Cir. 1985)…corpus, primarily based upon the fact that he had failed to exhaust his available state remedies. We affirm. A federal court will not granli habeas corpus relief unless the petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies. See Walker v. Zant, 693 F. 2d 1087, 1088 (11th Cir.1982); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). In this case, the Georgia courts have not been given an opportunity to consider petitioner’s allegations. Although petitioner apparently filed motions to discharge the detainer and thus bar prosec…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1982)
- Bufalino v. Reno, 613 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Cobb v. Louie L. Wainwright, 666 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1982)
- Bennie Dixon Burton v. Oliver, 599 F.2d 49 (5th Cir. 1979)