Baker v. Lee, 24557.

Decision Date27 October 1967
Docket NumberNo. 24557.,24557.
Citation384 F.2d 703
PartiesPhillip BAKER, Appellant, v. A. Frank LEE, Prison Commissioner et al., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Phillip Baker, pro se.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., John C. Tyson, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for appellees.

Before GEWIN, BELL and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied without a hearing for failure of appellant to exhaust his state remedies.

We reverse and remand for the following reasons: There was no state remedy available to appellant at the time the federal habeas corpus petition was filed, and the District Court failed to find that appellant had deliberately bypassed the orderly procedure of the state court and in so doing forfeited such remedies. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963).

Phillip Baker, appellant, was convicted on a plea of guilty to the charge of forgery of a $71.00 money order after indictment and waiver of counsel, in the Circuit Court of Elmore County, Alabama. He was sentenced to a term of fifteen years' imprisonment in the state penitentiary. The Court of Appeals of Alabama affirmed the conviction and denied rehearing. Upon timely application to the sentencing court for writ of error coram nobis, an evidentiary hearing was held on December 17, 1965 and the writ was denied on the same day. On March 22, 1966, Baker filed a petition for writ of mandamus to the state court, requesting the court to direct the Clerk of Court to comply with an alleged order of that court issued on the day of the coram nobis hearing, presumably given in open court upon oral motion of Baker or his court-appointed counsel. The order allegedly directed the court reporter to furnish Baker with a free copy of the transcript and record of the coram nobis hearing within sixty days from the denial of the writ. The state court thereafter denied the writ of mandamus.

Baker's petition for federal habeas corpus relief was filed on November 14, 1966, approximately eleven months after the state court's denial of the coram nobis writ, after the prescribed period for taking an appeal had passed. Consequently, Baker had no available state remedy at that time.

The U. S. Supreme Court in Fay v. Noia, supra, held at 399, 83 S.Ct. at 827:

"Noia\'s failure to appeal was not a failure to exhaust `the remedies available in the courts of the State\' as required by § 2254; that requirement
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Donovan v. Delgado
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 15 Octubre 1971
    ...673. 24 Title 28, U.S.C., Section 2254(b); See also Fay v. Noia, 1962, supra; Martin v. Spradley (5 Cir. 1965), 341 F.2d 89; Baker v. Lee (5 Cir. 1967), 384 F.2d 703. 25 Ryan v. Tinsley (10 Cir. 1963), 316 F.2d 430, cert. den. 375 U.S. 17, 84 S.Ct. 139, 11 L.Ed.2d 46; United States ex rel. ......
  • Wynn v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 12 Julio 1971
    ...524 (C.A.5) cert. denied, 400 U.S. 960, 91 S.Ct. 353, 27 L.Ed.2d 269 (1970); Burton v. Alabama, 396 F. 2d 755 (C.A.5 1968); Baker v. Lee, 384 F.2d 703 (C.A.5 1967); Burns v. Alabama, 360 F.2d 608 (C.A.5 1966); Smart v. Balkcom, 352 F.2d 502 (C.A.5 1965); Hayes v. Holman, 346 F.2d 991 (C.A.5......
  • United States ex rel. Linde v. Brierley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 23 Diciembre 1970
    ...applies to issue No. 1 above, as well as to issue No. 2. See Burton v. State of Alabama, 396 F.2d 755 (5th Cir. 1968); Baker v. Lee, 384 F.2d 703 (5th Cir. 1967); Bell v. State of Alabama, 367 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1966); Burns v. State of Alabama, 360 F.2d 608 (5th Cir. 1966); United States e......
  • Moore v. Dutton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • 16 Diciembre 1968
    ...bypasses state procedures he forfeits his state court remedies. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837; Baker v. Lee, 5 Cir., 384 F.2d 703. Under the circumstances petitioner here no longer possesses a state remedy as to the jury selection A District Court must make a findin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT