George Wm. Daegele v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary

351 F.2d 306, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4393
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedOctober 4, 1965
Docket8202_1
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 351 F.2d 306 (George Wm. Daegele v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
George Wm. Daegele v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, 351 F.2d 306, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4393 (10th Cir. 1965).

Opinion

LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court for the District of Kansas, entered without a hearing, denying appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus because appellant had failed to exhaust his state remedy. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Appellant is presently confined in the Kansas State Penitentiary pursuant to sentence imposed after plea of guilty to a charge of forceable rape. Certain aspects of his conviction after plea were considered upon appeal by the Kansas Supreme Court in State v. Daegele, 193 Kan. 314, 393 P.2d 978, and determined to be free from error or prejudice. His present application for a writ alleges that his plea of guilty “was coerced ; the result of negligence, con *307 spiracy, chicanery, and perjury * Although such a bald pleading unsupported by allegation of fact is legally insufficient, Martinez v. United States, 10 Cir., 344 F.2d 325, Stephens v. United States, 10 Cir., 246 F.2d 607, the trial court held that the conclusionary claim of a denial of a constitutional right must in any event be first presented to the Kansas courts pursuant to that state’s post-conviction statutory remedies. Kan. Stat.Ann. 60-1507, 1964. Since the issue of whether appellant’s plea was in fact voluntary was not considered by the Kansas Supreme Court on appeal, the judgment is manifestly correct. Bratt v. Crouse, 10 Cir. 346 F.2d 146.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
351 F.2d 306, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-wm-daegele-v-sherman-h-crouse-warden-kansas-state-penitentiary-ca10-1965.