John Omo v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary

395 F.2d 757
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedJune 19, 1968
Docket9792_1
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 395 F.2d 757 (John Omo 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
John Omo v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, 395 F.2d 757 (10th Cir. 1968).

Opinion

SETH, Circuit Judge.

This is a companion case to Brown v. Crouse, No. 9669, 10 Cir., 395 F.2d 755, and was heard with it.

The petitioner Omo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the United States District Court for the District of Kansas seeking his release from the Kansas State Penitentiary. He asserted several violations of his rights under the Constitution of the United States. These issues had been considered by the Kansas Supreme Court on appellant’s direct appeal from his conviction. State v. Omo, 199 Kan. 167, 428 P.2d 768. Petitioner urges that under Miles v. State, 195 Kan. 516, 407 P.2d 507, the Kansas Supreme Court has adopted a rule that it is not error for the trial court to dismiss post conviction motions which raise “trial errors” passed upon by the Kansas Supreme Court on the direct appeal of movant’s conviction. Appellant thus asserts that it would be futile for him to seek state post conviction relief, and relies on our recent case of Wood v. Crouse, February 9, 1968, 389 F.2d 747 (10th Cir.).

We find that Wood v. Crouse is not applicable here for the reasons we stated in our opinion filed in the case which is the companion to the one at bar. Brown v. Crouse, No. 9669, 395 F.2d 755 (10th Cir.).

The exhaustion of state remedies issue was properly determined by the trial court to be a proper reason to refuse to consider appellant’s petition, and for the reasons set out in our opinion in Brown v. Crouse, supra.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Smith v. Atkins
540 F. Supp. 756 (D. Kansas, 1982)
Gowler v. Arnold
462 F. Supp. 427 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1977)
Edwards v. Oklahoma
412 F. Supp. 556 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1976)
Karlin v. Oklahoma
412 F. Supp. 635 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1976)
Robinson v. Oklahoma
404 F. Supp. 1168 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1975)
Reynolds v. Oklahoma
397 F. Supp. 1112 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1975)
Moles v. State of Oklahoma
384 F. Supp. 1148 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1974)
Gist v. State of Oklahoma
371 F. Supp. 541 (E.D. Oklahoma, 1974)
Bonham v. Denney
364 F. Supp. 103 (E.D. Oklahoma, 1973)
Sandoval v. Felix Rodriguez
461 F.2d 1097 (Tenth Circuit, 1972)
Billy Joe Cochran v. Felix Rodriguez, Warden
438 F.2d 926 (Tenth Circuit, 1971)
Sanders v. Crouse
313 F. Supp. 1031 (D. Kansas, 1969)
United States ex rel. Crawford v. Anderson
296 F. Supp. 1 (D. Delaware, 1969)
Rito G. Canales v. J. E. Baker, Warden
406 F.2d 685 (Tenth Circuit, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
395 F.2d 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-omo-v-sherman-h-crouse-warden-kansas-state-penitentiary-ca10-1968.