Osbie Bailey v. D. M. Van Cleve, Warden, Atmore Prison Farm

Fifth Circuit

Osbie Bailey v. D. M. Van Cleve, Warden, Atmore Prison Farm

488 F.2d 137, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6605

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1973

Docket73-2348

StatusPublished

This text of 488 F.2d 137 (Osbie Bailey v. D. M. Van Cleve, Warden, Atmore Prison Farm) 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

Osbie Bailey v. D. M. Van Cleve, Warden, Atmore Prison Farm, 488 F.2d 137, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6605 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The district court in this habeas corpus ease granted the petition and set aside Osbie Bailey’s three Alabama robbery convictions and ordered a new trial. The basis for this action was its determination that Bailey’s attorney and the prosecutor jointly coerced him into entering his guilty pleas. Such a determination depends upon evidence not in the record of the state court guilty plea proceedings. Nothing in the record before us discloses that this evidence has ever been presented to the Alabama courts. Bailey appealed his conviction to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals arguing that his guilty pleas were not “understandingly and voluntarily” entered, but that court’s opinion indicates that his appeal was based solely on the record of the lower court proceedings. See *138 Bailey v. Alabama, 48 Ala.App. 149, 262 So.2d 636 (1972). The Attorney General of Alabama has represented in his brief before this court that the collateral remedy of coram nobis is presently available to Bailey in state court. We agree. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) we must reverse the district court’s decision and remand this case for Bailey to present his de hors the record claim to the state courts of Alabama without prejudice to his right to return to federal court if his exhaustion of existing state remedies does not afford the relief he seeks.

Vacated and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM:

The district court in this habeas corpus ease granted the petition and set aside Osbie Bailey’s three Alabama robbery convictions and ordered a new trial. The basis for this action was its determination that Bailey’s attorney and the prosecutor jointly coerced him into entering his guilty pleas. Such a determination depends upon evidence not in the record of the state court guilty plea proceedings. Nothing in the record before us discloses that this evidence has ever been presented to the Alabama courts. Bailey appealed his conviction to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals arguing that his guilty pleas were not “understandingly and voluntarily” entered, but that court’s opinion indicates that his appeal was based solely on the record of the lower court proceedings. See *138 Bailey v. Alabama, 48 Ala.App. 149, 262 So.2d 636 (1972). The Attorney General of Alabama has represented in his brief before this court that the collateral remedy of coram nobis is presently available to Bailey in state court. We agree. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) we must reverse the district court’s decision and remand this case for Bailey to present his de hors the record claim to the state courts of Alabama without prejudice to his right to return to federal court if his exhaustion of existing state remedies does not afford the relief he seeks.

Vacated and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 F.2d 137, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osbie-bailey-v-d-m-van-cleve-warden-atmore-prison-farm-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack