Palmer v. Comstock
| Decision Date | 23 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 22084.,22084. |
| Parties | George W. PALMER, Appellant, v. Howard M. COMSTOCK et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Edward D. O'Brian (argued), Anaheim, Cal., for appellant.
Jack R. Winkler (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for appellee.
Before MADDEN, Judge of the United States Court of Claims, and MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.
The district court's judgment dismissing appellant's petition for habeas corpus is affirmed on the ground that appellant has not exhausted available state remedies. Morehead v. State of California, 339 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1964).
Appellant contends that the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 has been satisfied because a petition for habeas corpus raising the constitutional issues was submitted to and denied by a state trial court, and "These issues * * * need only be presented once." Schiers v. People of State of California, 333 F.2d 173, 174 (9th Cir. 1964). Schiers holds only that the issues raised and rejected in an appeal from a judgment of conviction need not be submitted a second time to the state courts through state habeas corpus proceedings. Blair v. People of State of California, 340 F.2d 741, 744 (9th Cir. 1965) is to the same effect. Schiers does not hold that a habeas corpus petitioner may move directly from a state trial court to a federal court without first submitting the issues to state appellate tribunals. To the contrary, "it is apparent that appellant must first perfect his appeal throughout the State court hierarchy before requesting relief from the federal courts." Morehead v. State of California, 339 F.2d 170, 171 (9th Cir. 1964). It would be particularly inappropriate to by-pass the state appellate courts in this case for the decision principally relied upon by appellant, Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967), was announced after the denial of appellant's petition by the state trial court "and the California courts have never had an opportunity to appraise petitioner's rights in the light of that opinion." Schiers, supra, 333 F.2d at 177, Accord, Blair, supra, 340 F.2d at 745.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Superior Court of State of Cal., Los Angeles County
...supra; In Re Cortez, 1971, 6 Cal.3d 78, 98 Cal.Rptr. 307, 490 P.2d 819, 825. As to this procedure, see our decisions in Palmer v. Comstock, 9 Cir., 1968, 394 F.2d 395, and Morehead v. State of California, 9 Cir., 1964, 339 F.2d 170.7 This assumes that there has been no deliberate bypass of ......
-
Conley v. White
...was announced after the state appellate courts last considered his case. Daboul v. Craven, 429 F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1970); Palmer v. Comstock, 394 F.2d 395 (9th Cir. 1968). The reasons for this rule are simple and clear. The states have the primary responsibility for ensuring that their crimi......
-
Kidd v. Coiner
...the courts best equipped to pursue and find the answers. See United States v. Myers, 384 F.2d 279 (3rd Cir.1967); Palmer v. Comstock, 394 F.2d 395 (9th Cir.1968); United States ex rel. Smith v. Brierley, 295 F.Supp. 1195 (M.D.Pa.1969); Needel v. Scafati, 412 F.2d 761 (1st Cir. 3-20-69); Car......
-
Cabrera v. Smith, Civ. A. No. 5650.
...42-43, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 41 (1967); United States ex rel. Howard v. Russell, 405 F.2d 169, 171 (3d Cir. 1969); Palmer v. Comstock, 394 F.2d 395 (9th Cir. 1968). See also McDonald v. Moore, 353 F.2d 106 (5th Cir. 1965). Under the above cases, the petitioner has complied with the exhau......