Harry Green v. Dr. George Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Harry Green v. Dr. George Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

460 F.2d 322

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 13, 1972

Docket72-1420

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 460 F.2d 322 (Harry Green v. Dr. George Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harry Green v. Dr. George Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 460 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court denying the petition of a Texas state prisoner for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Appellant is presently serving an 18-year sentence for possession of narcotics. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Green v. State, Tex.Cr.App.1970, 451 S.W.2d 893. As grounds for relief appellant contended that the Trial Court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after the prosecutor made improper remarks during his closing argument. He also contended that evidence was introduced which was seized under an invalid search warrant. Finally, appellant contended that the prosecution circumvented the court’s pretrial order to produce the search warrant when it produced a warrant and affidavit different from the one used at the actual trial. Appellant alleged that the defense constructed around the warrant produced had to be abandoned, leaving him no time to study and defend against the warrant introduced.

The record reveals that the last stated issue is presently under consideration in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, on the appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Article 11.07, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court has consistently required that state remedies be exhausted as to all issues raised in a federal habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Burroughs v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1972, 454 F.2d 1165; Anderson v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1972, 456 F.2d 1303; Johnson v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1971, 453 F.2d 385. Clearly, appellant’s state remedies have not been exhausted.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court denying the petition of a Texas state prisoner for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Appellant is presently serving an 18-year sentence for possession of narcotics. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Green v. State, Tex.Cr.App.1970, 451 S.W.2d 893. As grounds for relief appellant contended that the Trial Court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after the prosecutor made improper remarks during his closing argument. He also contended that evidence was introduced which was seized under an invalid search warrant. Finally, appellant contended that the prosecution circumvented the court’s pretrial order to produce the search warrant when it produced a warrant and affidavit different from the one used at the actual trial. Appellant alleged that the defense constructed around the warrant produced had to be abandoned, leaving him no time to study and defend against the warrant introduced.

The record reveals that the last stated issue is presently under consideration in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, on the appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Article 11.07, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court has consistently required that state remedies be exhausted as to all issues raised in a federal habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Burroughs v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1972, 454 F.2d 1165; Anderson v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1972, 456 F.2d 1303; Johnson v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1971, 453 F.2d 385. Clearly, appellant’s state remedies have not been exhausted.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 F.2d 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harry-green-v-dr-george-beto-director-texas-department-of-corrections-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack