Coleman v. Maxwell
| Citation | 351 F.2d 285 |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 16141.,16141. |
| Parties | James Nelson COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. L. MAXWELL, Warden Ohio Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
William P. Streng (Court appointed), Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief.
Leo J. Conway, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for appellee, William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, on the brief.
Before O'SULLIVAN and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, Senior District Judge.*
Petitioner-appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, seeking to attack collaterally his convictions in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, on three counts of burglary and three counts of larceny. Before that court, prior to trial, petitioner had made motions to suppress evidence seized in two searches; one of an automobile belonging to Coleman's wife and under his control and possession, and the other a search of a store-front which had been leased by petitioner. The motions were based upon the fact that the searches were made without warrant and the claim that both were in violation of petitioner's constitutional rights.
On denial of these motions to suppress, petitioner was subsequently tried to a jury and found guilty as stated above. He then appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals, alleging the failure to suppress the evidence just referred to as appellate issues. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, State v. Coleman, 91 O.L. Abs. 191, 186 N.E.2d 93 (1962). Thereupon appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Ohio on the same grounds, whereupon that court dismissed the appeal. State v. Coleman, 174 Ohio St. 574, 191 N.E.2d 58 (1963).
Upon filing of the writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, the District Court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner was subsequently granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis and this court appointed counsel for the argument of his appeal.
It is clear to this court that once an issue of asserted federal constitutional violation has been presented to the highest state court in the state concerned, that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies does not require futile repetitive presentation to such court by repeated attempts through a variety of motions. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed. 2d 837 (1963); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 447, 73 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. Robinson
...bar federal relief. Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40, 42-43, 88 S.Ct. 194, 196-197, 19 L.Ed.2d 41, 43, 44 (1967); Coleman v. Maxwell, 351 F.2d 285, 286 (CA 6 1965)." "It is the legal issues that are to be exhausted, not the petitioner." Park v. Thompson, 356 F.Supp. 783, 788 Moreover, it is......
-
Ralls v. Manson
...proceedings bar federal relief. Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40, 42-43 , 88 S.Ct. 194, 196-197, 19 L.Ed.2d 41 (1967); Coleman v. Maxwell, 351 F. 2d 285, 286 (C.A.6 1965). And our own Court of Appeals has held, "Under the traditional concepts of exhaustion only one opportunity through prope......
-
Butler v. Bensinger
...additional proceedings bar federal relief. Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40, 42-43, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 41 (1967); Coleman v. Maxwell, 351 F. 2d 285, 286 (CA 6 1965). Whether the State would have heard petitioners' claims in any of the suggested alternative proceedings is a matter of c......
-
Allen v. Perini
...of Michigan, 420 F.2d 259 (6th Cir., 1970), this Court said: "However, the exhaustion requirement is not absolute. See Coleman v. Maxwell, 351 F.2d 285 (6th Cir.); Saulsbury v. Green, 347 F.2d 828 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 882, 86 S.Ct. 173, 15 L.Ed.2d 122. Where there are circumst......