Vincent Lee v. State of Kansas

Tenth Circuit

Vincent Lee v. State of Kansas

346 F.2d 48, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5416

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 1965

Docket8111

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 346 F.2d 48 (Vincent Lee v. State of Kansas) 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

Vincent Lee v. State of Kansas, 346 F.2d 48, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5416 (10th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied without hearing the petition of appellant, a state prisoner, for federal habeas corpus. The sole ground for relief is the alleged denial by the Kansas Supreme Court of a speedy hearing on appellant’s appeal to that court. Such appeal was filed on August 11, 1964, and was set for hearing on May 10, 1965. At the oral argument before us, counsel for appellee stated, and counsel for appellant did not deny, that the hearing was continued on the motion of appellant. In the circumstances, federal habeas corpus is not available because appellant has not exhausted the remedies available in the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 435, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837; Ex Parte Davis, 318 U.S. 412, 63 S.Ct. 679, 87 L.Ed. 868; Henry v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 344 F.2d 109, decided April 12, 1965. The claim of denial of equal protection because of the delay deserves no consideration because it is neither alleged nor shown that the Kansas Supreme Court has in any way discriminated against appellant in its procedural actions.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied without hearing the petition of appellant, a state prisoner, for federal habeas corpus. The sole ground for relief is the alleged denial by the Kansas Supreme Court of a speedy hearing on appellant’s appeal to that court. Such appeal was filed on August 11, 1964, and was set for hearing on May 10, 1965. At the oral argument before us, counsel for appellee stated, and counsel for appellant did not deny, that the hearing was continued on the motion of appellant. In the circumstances, federal habeas corpus is not available because appellant has not exhausted the remedies available in the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 435, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837; Ex Parte Davis, 318 U.S. 412, 63 S.Ct. 679, 87 L.Ed. 868; Henry v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 344 F.2d 109, decided April 12, 1965. The claim of denial of equal protection because of the delay deserves no consideration because it is neither alleged nor shown that the Kansas Supreme Court has in any way discriminated against appellant in its procedural actions.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 F.2d 48, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vincent-lee-v-state-of-kansas-ca10-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack