Frazier v. Tollett

E.D. Tennessee

Frazier v. Tollett

333 F. Supp. 1317, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10999

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee

DecidedNovember 1, 1971

DocketCiv. A. No. 2679

StatusPublished

This text of 333 F. Supp. 1317 (Frazier v. Tollett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frazier v. Tollett, 333 F. Supp. 1317, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10999 (E.D. Tenn. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

This is a pro se application by the petitioner Mr. Frazier for the federal writ of habeas corpus, in which he claims that he is in custody of the respondent pursuant to the judgments of the Criminal Court of Sullivan County, Tennessee in violation of the federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In gist, the petitioner complains that he was convicted and sentenced wrongfully by such court as both a felon and a habitual criminal [1318]*1318by the same jury and judge. It does not appear from such application that the petitioner has exhausted his state remedies.

The federal writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted, where it does not appear in the application therefor that the constitutional questions presented therein have been ruled upon by the courts of Tennessee. Horne v. Wilson, D.C.Tenn. (1969), 306 F.Supp. 753, 754 [1]. It appears that there are available to Mr. Frazier rights: to appeal his convictions to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; to seek, in the event of affirmation of such judgments by that court, certiorari from the Tennessee Supreme Court; and failing there, to proceed under the Tennessee Post-Conviction Procedures Act, T.C.A. §§ 40-3801, et seq., or the Tennessee Habeas Corpus Act, T.C.A. § 23-1801 (see esp. T.C.A. § 40-3808).

Unless the petitioner shall show within 20 days the required exhaustion of his state remedies, this action shall stand

Dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b), (c); 2243.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

This is a pro se application by the petitioner Mr. Frazier for the federal writ of habeas corpus, in which he claims that he is in custody of the respondent pursuant to the judgments of the Criminal Court of Sullivan County, Tennessee in violation of the federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In gist, the petitioner complains that he was convicted and sentenced wrongfully by such court as both a felon and a habitual criminal [1318]*1318by the same jury and judge. It does not appear from such application that the petitioner has exhausted his state remedies.

The federal writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted, where it does not appear in the application therefor that the constitutional questions presented therein have been ruled upon by the courts of Tennessee. Horne v. Wilson, D.C.Tenn. (1969), 306 F.Supp. 753, 754 [1]. It appears that there are available to Mr. Frazier rights: to appeal his convictions to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; to seek, in the event of affirmation of such judgments by that court, certiorari from the Tennessee Supreme Court; and failing there, to proceed under the Tennessee Post-Conviction Procedures Act, T.C.A. §§ 40-3801, et seq., or the Tennessee Habeas Corpus Act, T.C.A. § 23-1801 (see esp. T.C.A. § 40-3808).

Unless the petitioner shall show within 20 days the required exhaustion of his state remedies, this action shall stand

Dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b), (c); 2243.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 F. Supp. 1317, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-tollett-tned-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack