Ayers v. Davis
| Decision Date | 13 March 1964 |
| Citation | 377 S.W.2d 154 |
| Parties | Keith AYERS, Appellant, v. David L. DAVIS, Warden, Kentucky State Reformatory, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Keith Ayers, pro se.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., Martin Glazer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellees.
CLAY, Commissioner.
Appellant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, principally on the ground that his constitutional rights were violated because his court-appointed counsel had an adverse interest in the proceeding and had failed to effectively represent him in presenting his defense.
The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it failed to state facts upon which relief could be granted.
The Commonwealth's motion to dismiss was based on the ground that since appellant had a remedy by motion under R Cr 11.42, he was not entitled to a hearing on his habeas corpus petition. RCr 11.42 is intended to provide a more satisfactory form of remedy for this type of case than is practicable under habeas corpus. See Higbee v. Thomas, Ky., 376 S.W.2d 305 (1963), and Tipton and Sprinkle v. Commonwealth, Ky., 376 S.W.2d 290 (1964). It is comparable with the remedy provided federal prisoners by 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2255. Cf. United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232 (1951). The federal statute expressly suspends the right to proceed by habeas corpus 'if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.' RCr 11.42 does not contain such an explicit provision, but its purpose plainly implies it.
Our opinion in Rice v. Davis, Ky., 366 S.W.2d 153 (1963), broadening the remedy of habeas corpus so as to provide an adequate post-conviction review procedure in conformity with the current trend of U.S. Supreme Court opinions, does not apply to proceedings originating on and after January 1, 1963, the effective date of RCr 11.42.
There being no showing that the remedy by motion pursuant to RCr 11.42 is inadequate to test the legality of appellant's detention, his petition was properly dismissed.
The judgment is affirmed.
Montgomery, J., dissents on the same ground as in Commonwealth v. Strickland, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 701 (1964).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. Wingo
...have been presented in the same proceeding.' Gray alleges no reason why the remedy offered by RCr 11.42 is not adequate. Ayers v. Davis, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 154 (1964). Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy which is available only when relief by the usual legal processes is inadequate. Smith......
-
Ayers v. Davis
...the scope of RCr 11.42. The rule is admittedly intended to afford a remedy similar to the federal remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the Ayers v. Davis opinion, it is pointed out that the federal statute expressly provides for a suspension of the right to habeas corpus under certain conditio......
-
Jones v. Davis, 15826.
...same." This rule affords a post-conviction review comparable to the remedy provided federal prisoners by 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Ayers v. Davis, 377 S.W.2d 154 (Ky.1964). See also Moore v. Commonwealth, 380 S. W.2d 76 (Ky.1964); Etherton v. Commonwealth, 379 S.W.2d 730 (Ky.1964); Nolan v. Thomas,......
-
Wingo v. Ringo
...entertained Ringo's habeas corpus petition because there was no showing of inadequacy of the remedy provided by RCr 11.42. See Ayers v. Davis, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 154. A further ground for denying post-conviction relief would have been that Ringo, in a previous proceeding under RCr 11.42, had r......