John L. Jones v. State of Texas

Fifth Circuit

John L. Jones v. State of Texas

441 F.2d 733, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10602

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 1971

Docket71-1102

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 441 F.2d 733 (John L. Jones v. State of Texas) 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

John L. Jones v. State of Texas, 441 F.2d 733, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10602 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on December 21, 1970 in the United States District Court, wherein he alleged that his Texas state conviction for robbery by firearms was invalid because he had been subjected to double jeopardy and the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support the conviction. The District Court denied his petition on the ground that the appellant had failed to exhaust his available state remedies inasmuch as his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction was then pending in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

We find no error in the district court’s refusal to consider the merits of the appellant’s habeas petition. Under the doctrine of comity a federal court should not exercise jurisdiction over a state prisoner’s claims of constitutional deprivation, unless or until the highest court of his state has adjudicated them, either upon direct appeal or collateral attack. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (1959); Ector v. Smith, 438 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1971); Wheeler v. Beto, 407 F.2d 816 (5th Cir. 1969).

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on December 21, 1970 in the United States District Court, wherein he alleged that his Texas state conviction for robbery by firearms was invalid because he had been subjected to double jeopardy and the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support the conviction. The District Court denied his petition on the ground that the appellant had failed to exhaust his available state remedies inasmuch as his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction was then pending in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

We find no error in the district court’s refusal to consider the merits of the appellant’s habeas petition. Under the doctrine of comity a federal court should not exercise jurisdiction over a state prisoner’s claims of constitutional deprivation, unless or until the highest court of his state has adjudicated them, either upon direct appeal or collateral attack. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (1959); Ector v. Smith, 438 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1971); Wheeler v. Beto, 407 F.2d 816 (5th Cir. 1969).

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F.2d 733, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-l-jones-v-state-of-texas-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack