James Douglas Brookins v. State of Florida

Fifth Circuit

James Douglas Brookins v. State of Florida

461 F.2d 663, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8907

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 19, 1972

Docket72-1876

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 461 F.2d 663 (James Douglas Brookins v. State of Florida) 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

James Douglas Brookins v. State of Florida, 461 F.2d 663, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8907 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The § 2254 petition of James Douglas Brookins for writ of habeas corpus was denied by the District Court for failure to exhaust State remedies. We affirm.

Among the several contentions urged in support of his petition for ha- *664 beas corpus relief, the appellant alleged that he was not advised by the State trial court or his court-appointed counsel of this right to pursue a direct appeal. The record reveals, and appellant admits, that that issue has never been presented to the State appellate courts of Florida, since it was not raised in either of his two appeals from the denial of his Motions to Vacate Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 1.850, Fla.R.Crim.P., 33 F.S.A. Thus, his State remedies have not been exhausted. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, Burroughs v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1972, 454 F.2d 1165; Johnson v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1971, 453 F.2d 385; Porter v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1971, 439 F.2d 264.

Appellant’s appropriate remedy at this point, as delineated by the Florida Supreme Court, would be to seek habeas corpus in the Florida District Court of Appeals for the district in which he was convicted. Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.S.Ct., 1969, 229 So.2d 239; Powe v. State, Fla.S.Ct., 1968, 216 So.2d 446.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The § 2254 petition of James Douglas Brookins for writ of habeas corpus was denied by the District Court for failure to exhaust State remedies. We affirm.

Among the several contentions urged in support of his petition for ha- *664 beas corpus relief, the appellant alleged that he was not advised by the State trial court or his court-appointed counsel of this right to pursue a direct appeal. The record reveals, and appellant admits, that that issue has never been presented to the State appellate courts of Florida, since it was not raised in either of his two appeals from the denial of his Motions to Vacate Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 1.850, Fla.R.Crim.P., 33 F.S.A. Thus, his State remedies have not been exhausted. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, Burroughs v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1972, 454 F.2d 1165; Johnson v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1971, 453 F.2d 385; Porter v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1971, 439 F.2d 264.

Appellant’s appropriate remedy at this point, as delineated by the Florida Supreme Court, would be to seek habeas corpus in the Florida District Court of Appeals for the district in which he was convicted. Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.S.Ct., 1969, 229 So.2d 239; Powe v. State, Fla.S.Ct., 1968, 216 So.2d 446.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

461 F.2d 663, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-douglas-brookins-v-state-of-florida-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack