United States of America Ex Rel. Patrick J. Huffman v. The Commonwealth Court of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

453 F.2d 1254, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 12056
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJanuary 3, 1972
Docket18377
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 453 F.2d 1254 (United States of America Ex Rel. Patrick J. Huffman v. The Commonwealth Court of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States of America Ex Rel. Patrick J. Huffman v. The Commonwealth Court of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 453 F.2d 1254, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 12056 (3d Cir. 1972).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner in this application for ha-beas corpus seeks to challenge the constitutionality of 61 P.S. § 331.21a, which confers on the Board of Parole of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania authority to recommit a convicted parole violator to serve the remainder of his sentence without credit for the time spent on parole. 1

The district court did not reach the merits of petitioner’s contentions. It held that petitioner had not exhausted state remedies since he had not filed a petition under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act, 19 P.S. § 1180-5, in the Office of the Clerk of the Court for the County in which he was sentenced. Petitioner was sentenced in Allegheny County; he sought relief in the Commonwealth Court in Dauphin County.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c),

An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.

Petitioner has neither filed in the proper court under 19 P.S. § 1180-5, nor-pursued an appeal to the highest court in the state. He has clearly not exhausted his state remedies.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

1

. The constitutionality of this Section has previously been affirmed. United States ex rel. Lyle v. Maroney, 260 F.Supp. 689 (W.D.Pa.1966), cert. den. Lyle v. Maroney, 386 U.S. 998, 87 S.Ct. 1319, 18 L.Ed.2d 347 (1966).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 F.2d 1254, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 12056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-patrick-j-huffman-v-the-commonwealth-ca3-1972.