Blaylock v. Fitzharris, 26714.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 26714.,26714. |
| Citation | 455 F.2d 462 |
| Parties | Paul Edward BLAYLOCK, Appellant, v. C. J. FITZHARRIS, Superintendent, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Paul E. Blaylock, in pro. per.
Evelle J. Younger, Cal. Atty. Gen., Daniel J. Kremer, James D. Garbolino, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY, ELY and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
Blaylock is a California state prisoner. Claiming that certain of his federal constitutional rights had been infringed, he filed a petition for habeas corpus in the District Court. The District Court, without conducting an evidentiary hearing, denied the petition upon the grounds that Blaylock had failed to exhaust available state court remedies and that he had deliberately bypassed the California courts.
Blaylock's state court conviction was for the offense of manslaughter, and he did not take a timely appeal from that conviction. Subsequently, he sought unsuccessfully to take an untimely appeal to the California appellate courts, and he was also unsuccessful in obtaining relief by way of habeas corpus in the California courts.
We have concluded that Blaylock did in fact exhaust his available state court collateral remedies, and here, the appellee does not argue to the contrary.
The District Court apparently arrived at its conclusion that Blaylock had deliberately bypassed the state courts because he failed promptly to take a direct appeal from the state court judgment of conviction. On the deliberate bypass issue, the Supreme Court has set forth the appropriate standard as follows:
"If a habeas applicant, after consultation with competent counsel or otherwise, understandingly and knowingly forewent the privilege of seeking to vindicate his federal claims in the state courts, whether for strategic, tactical, or any other reasons that can fairly be described as the deliberate by-passing of state procedures, then it is open to the federal court on habeas to deny him all relief if the state courts refused to entertain his federal claims on the merits—though of course only after the federal court has satisfied itself, by holding a hearing or by some other means, of the facts bearing upon the applicant\'s default."
Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 439, 83 S. Ct. 822, 849, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963).
In applying the foregoing standard adversely to Blaylock, the court apparently relied upon two statements supplied by Blaylock in the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minor v. Black, 74--2242
...v. Yeager, 476 F.2d 613, 614--15 n. 2 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 855, 94 S.Ct. 154, 38 L.Ed.2d 104 (1973); see Blaylock v. Fitzharris, 455 F.2d 462, 464 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 948, 93 S.Ct. 286, 34 L.Ed.2d 218 (1972) (evidentiary hearing if 'genuine' issue of deliberate ......
-
D'Amico v. Manson
...made by the trial court and it is clearly erroneous. See Montgomery v. Hopper, 488 F.2d 877, 879 (5th Cir.1973); Blaylock v. Fitzharris, 455 F.2d 462, 463 (9th Cir.1972); Practice Book § The only evidence presented by the plaintiff in support of his claim that he was mentally incompetent at......
-
Williams v. Greco
...States ex rel. Griffin v. Martin, 409 F.2d 1300 (2d Cir. 1969); Fondanova v. Moore, 460 F.2d 308 (1st Cir. 1972); Blaylock v. Fitzharris, 455 F.2d 462 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 948, 93 S.Ct. 286, 34 L.Ed.2d 218 (1972); Perry v. Decker, 415 F.2d 773 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denie......