Milton D. Lizana v. State of Alabama

Fifth Circuit

Milton D. Lizana v. State of Alabama

394 F.2d 512, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6920

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided May 16, 1968·No. 25505_1·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The district court denied this habeas corpus petition filed by an Alabama state prisoner for failure “to exhaust his presently available State remedies.” It is true that appellant has failed to appeal from the denial of his coram nobis petition, and the six-month period allowed for appeal from that order of May 21, 1967, had not expired when he filed his petition below on September 25, 1967, or when the court denied that petition. See Allen v. State, 42 Ala.App. 9, 150 So.2d 399, 401 (1963). Nevertheless, the appeal period has now expired and there is no state remedy presently available to determine the validity of appellant’s claims which concern matters dehors the record. Hence, we hold that the exhaustion requirements of 28 U.S. C.A. § 2254 have been met, since appellant presently has no available state remedy. Bell v. State of Alabama, 5 Cir., 367 F.2d 243.

We conclude, therefore, that a return and an evidentiary hearing must be held.

The judgment is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The district court denied this habeas corpus petition filed by an Alabama state prisoner for failure “to exhaust his presently available State remedies.” It is true that appellant has failed to appeal from the denial of his coram nobis petition, and the six-month period allowed for appeal from that order of May 21, 1967, had not expired when he filed his petition below on September 25, 1967, or when the court denied that petition. See Allen v. State, 42 Ala.App. 9, 150 So.2d 399, 401 (1963). Nevertheless, the appeal period has now expired and there is no state remedy presently available to determine the validity of appellant’s claims which concern matters dehors the record. Hence, we hold that the exhaustion requirements of 28 U.S. C.A. § 2254 have been met, since appellant presently has no available state remedy. Bell v. State of Alabama, 5 Cir., 367 F.2d 243.

We conclude, therefore, that a return and an evidentiary hearing must be held.

The judgment is reversed.

Milton D. Lizana v. State of Alabama, 394 F.2d 512, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6920 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

394 F.2d 512 (Milton D. Lizana v. State of Alabama) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related