Farley v. Skeen
| Decision Date | 15 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 609.,609. |
| Citation | 107 F. Supp. 881 |
| Parties | FARLEY v. SKEEN, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
Carl Bachmann, C. Lee Spillers, Lester Hess and Wayne Brooks, all of Wheeling, W. Va., for petitioner.
The petitioner, a state prisoner, has brought this action in habeas corpus. The petition and exhibits therewith show the following facts:
Petitioner was tried by a jury in the Criminal Court of McDowell County, West Virginia, and found guilty of first degree murder without recommendation, which under West Virginia law makes the death sentence mandatory. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and on January 19, 1942, petitioner was sentenced to be executed. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of McDowell County where the judgment of the Criminal Court was affirmed. An appeal was then taken to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia where the judgment was again affirmed. State v. Farley, 125 W.Va. 266, 23 S.E.2d 616. Petitioner alleges two letters from the clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, filed with his petition, show that such court denied his application to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court of the United States in forma pauperis. Those letters from the clerk of the Supreme Court of West Virginia merely acknowledge receipt of a letter from Robert Turner, Director, Sociology Department, West Virginia Penitentiary, concerning the possibility of an appeal, and suggest that the matter of appeal be discussed with counsel. About March 31, 1943, the Governor of West Virginia commuted the sentence to life imprisonment.
On July 10, 1951, petitioner filed his petition in this court asking for a writ of habeas corpus and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Although he does not name Orel Skeen as a respondent in the caption of his petition, it is clear that he claims that he is being illegally detained by Warden Skeen. With his petition there is filed as an exhibit a complete transcript of the record of his trial, this being the printed record filed upon the appeal of his conviction in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. State v. Farley, supra.
Petitioner does not allege, and a search of the records does not disclose that petitioner has ever applied to the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia, where the state prison is located, or to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner does not allege that he has ever asked any other court to release him by writ of habeas corpus on the ground of illegal detention. It appears, however, from a search of the official reports of the Supreme Court of the United States, that on March 24, 1952, subsequent to the date this proceeding was instituted, the Supreme Court of the United States denied motion by petitioner "for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus". Farley v. Skeen, Warden, 343 U. S. 902, 72 S.Ct. 643.
It is well settled law that petitioner must first apply to the state court for release by habeas corpus. As stated by this court in Pebley v. Knotts, 95 F.Supp. 283, state prisoners should exhaust their state remedies by applying to a state court to enforce their constitutional rights before applying to a federal court for such relief. To the same effect see United States ex rel. Bowe v. Skeen, 107 F.Supp. 879, and United States ex rel. Farmer v. Skeen, 107 F.Supp. 877, this day filed by this court. Cook v. Hart, 146 U.S. 183, 13 S.Ct. 40, 36 L.Ed. 934; Sanderlin v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 138...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davison v. State of Oklahoma, CIV-76-0749-D.
...and efficient assistance in the absence of allegations of fact from which prejudice may be reasonably inferred." Accord Farley v. Skeen, 107 F.Supp. 881 (N.D.W.Va.1952). In summarily rejecting the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Mooney v. United States, 320 F.Supp......
-
Farley v. Skeen, 6685.
...Warden, 343 U.S. 902, 72 S.Ct. 643, 96 L.Ed. 1322. A prior application to the court below was denied October 15, 1952. Farley v. Skeen, Warden, D.C., 107 F.Supp. 881. The action of the court below was unquestionably correct. Appellant was represented by counsel on his trial in the state cou......
-
Farley v. Skeen, 609-W.
...petition was dismissed by this court on October 15, 1952, for the reasons stated in an opinion filed by this court. Farley v. Skeen, Warden, D.C.N.D.W.Va., 107 F.Supp. 881. In that case the court appointed four experienced lawyers to represent him. No appeal was taken. He has now filed this......
- United States v. Skeen