Anthony J. Veneri, Jr. And Leo J. Reilly v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden
This text of 453 F.2d 883 (Anthony J. Veneri, Jr. And Leo J. Reilly v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Petitioners appeal from the denial of their petition for a writ of habeas corpus by District Judge William H. Webster. We affirm.
Petitioners assert that their post-conviction efforts following a state conviction for armed robbery have been subjected to inordinate delay, thereby denying them due process and equal protection of the law. The inaction the petitioners complain of has been resolved, their appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri having been heard and decided Veneri v. Missouri, 474 S.W.2d 833 (1971). Furthermore, the issue of delay not having been presented for determination by the courts of Missouri and since there has been no showing that the state corrective process is inadequate to protect petitioner’s rights, this Court will not interfere by habeas corpus and will leave petitioners to exhaust the remedies afforded them by Missouri for determination of their claim. See Bosler v. Swenson, 423 F.2d 257 (CA 8 1970).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
453 F.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-j-veneri-jr-and-leo-j-reilly-v-harold-r-swenson-warden-ca8-1972.