Johnson v. Patterson, 8761.
| Citation | 367 F.2d 268 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 8761.,8761. |
| Parties | Albert JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Wayne K. PATTERSON, Warden, Colorado State Penitentiary, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Yale Huffman, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Robert C. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., were with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, a state prisoner, alleging the existence of a great disparity between the sentence he is now serving and the sentence imposed upon a co-defendant, sought issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The trial court, after comprehensive review of the state court record determined that petitioner's severe sentence had not been arbitrarily imposed so as to violate a federal constitutional right and denied the petition for the writ.
No appellate claim is made that the judgment of the district court is faulty either upon the merits or upon jurisdictional grounds. Appellate counsel does assert that petitioner's conviction and sentence are suspect upon several grounds which have not been presented to the Colorado state courts and which were not decided by the federal district court. This court, of course, does not review arguments but limits its consideration to that which is decided in the court below.
The writ was properly denied and the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ray v. United States
-
Relford v. Commandant, US Disciplinary Barracks
...by resourceful appellate counsel were not presented to the district court and are not properly before us for review. Johnson v. Patterson, 10 Cir., 367 F.2d 268. In the circumstances of the case and to avoid a repetitive habeas application, we have given consideration to them. About twelve ......
-
Brown v. Crouse, 266-69.
...arrest. This issue is presented for the first time in this court and is thus both improper for and incapable of review. Johnson v. Patterson, 10 Cir., 367 F.2d 268. 1 The court found that the state remedies were exhausted because the sentencing court failed to respond to appellant's motion ......