EDWARD SMITH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
J.D. WHITE, WARDEN; AND CHARLES GRADDICK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
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 petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus is not required to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Alabama Supreme Court to exhaust state remedies.
Appellant sought a writ of habeas corpus, which the district court dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. The district court believed appeal…
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 Conflict Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This matter has been presented to the court upon appellant’s motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis and application for certificate of probable cause. We grant both of these motions. In reviewing the file, we note that the district court dismissed without prejudice appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petitioner below had failed to exhaust his state remedies. The district court found that although petitioner’s conviction had been appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, it had not been presented to the Supreme Court of Alabama. The district court mistakenly relied upon the case of Longmire v. State, (Ms. 81-309, Dec. 10, 1982),-So. 2d-(Ala.1982), which was decided under a different procedural context than that in which the present case is presented.
Our circuit has not dealt with the issue of whether exhaustion of state remedies in Alabama requires an appeal from the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to the Alabama Supreme Court. However, our circuit has in Williams v. Wainwright, 452 F. 2d 775 (5th Cir.1971), stated the following:
Since petitioner did not seek review by the Florida Supreme Court, we must consider whether that failure supports the contention that Williams has not exhausted his state remedies. Under the circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that a review by the Florida Supreme Court was not available to Williams within the meaning of the habeas corpus provisions of the United States Code. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Bartz v. Wainwright, 5th Cir.1971, F. 2d [Nov. 19, 1971].
The Florida Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is strictly described by the Florida Constitution. F.S.A., Const., Art. 5, § 4(2); Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Little River Bank & T. Co., 243 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1970). The Florida District Courts of Appeal were created not as intermediate courts of appeal but as the “end of the road” for most appeals. The Florida Supreme Court has the role of maintaining uniformity and harmony in appellate court decisions by resolving conflicts with Supreme Court decisions and conflicts between the districts. Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., 177 So. 2d 221 (Fla.1965); Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1970). In a case such as this, the test of jurisdiction is not whether the Supreme Court believes a decision is incorrect but whether the decision sought to be reviewed conflicts with a decision of the Florida Supreme Court or a decision of a different district court of appeals. Kyle v. Kyle, 139 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1962).
**
Accordingly, we hold that in this case the existence of conflict jurisdiction in the Florida Supreme Court with its limited scope offers no practical remedy that Williams was required to exhaust under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Bartz v. Wainwright, 5th Cir.1971, F. 2d [Nov. 19, 1971]. The requirements of this section are rooted in the doctrine of comity and should not be so construed as to burden the state system with meaningless petitions for relief to forums which are not intended by state law to consider them.
Williams v. Wainwright, 452 F. 2d at 776-77 (footnotes omitted).
Rule 9.030(a) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure describes the limited jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court and Rule 39(c) of the Rules of Alabama Supreme Court describes the limited jurisdiction of that supreme court. Both rules provide that only under limited circumstances may cases be appealed from the state court of appeals to the state supreme court. The reasoning of the court in Williams v. Wainwright, supra, is just as applicable to Alabama appellate decisions as to Florida appellate decisions. In these states as in the federal system, an appellate court decision is deemed a final adjudication and subsequent appeals, even though they may be permitted, are not required for the purpose of exhausting a litigant’s remedies.
Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in holding that a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus is required to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Alabama Supreme Court in order to exhaust his state remedies to meet the requirements of Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Jones, 256 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2001)…ues of first impression relating to O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999), and its application to Alabama prisoners whose direct appeal process was completed before that decision was released. In Smith v. White, 719 F. 2d 390 (11th Cir.1983), we held that a defendant whose conviction was affirmed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals did not need to file a petition for discretionary certiorari review in the Alabama Supreme Court in order to exhaust state remedies and…1 / 2
-
Upshaw v. Singletary, 70 F.3d 576 (11th Cir. 1995)…ard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971); Nelson v. Nagle, 995 F. 2d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir.1993). In Florida, in non-death penalty cases, the applicant must have apprised a district court of appeal. Smith v. White, 719 F. 2d 390, 391 (11th Cir.1983). Second, the applicant must have presented his claims in state court in a procedurally correct manner. A state court’s denial of a claim based on a procedural violation generally bars a federal court from considering the claim.…
-
Collier v. Jones, 910 F.2d 770 (11th Cir. 1990)…ity to rule on them. See Mitchell v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. 485 So. 2d 1138 (Ala.1986) (Appellate court has no choice but to affirm lower court’s decisions on issues raised below but not presented to appellate court for review.); Smith v. White, 719 F. 2d 390 (11th Cir.1983) (Exhaustion satisfied once issue presented to Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.). Dismissal of Collier’s federal habeas corpus petition to allow him to fully exhaust these claims would be futile, however, because Collier is barred…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1977)
- Clearwater Elks Club, Inc. v. Gussie Catrett & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 177 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1965)
- Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1970)
- Kyle v. Kyle, 139 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1962)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 452 F.2d 775 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Little River Bank & Tr. Co. & Rachel Mechlowitz, 243 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1970)