William Glenn Denney v. State of Kansas, Its Agent, Sheriff Dayton Evans, Cherokee County, Columbus, Kansas

436 F.2d 587, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12398
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 14, 1971
Docket506-70
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 436 F.2d 587 (William Glenn Denney v. State of Kansas, Its Agent, Sheriff Dayton Evans, Cherokee County, Columbus, 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
William Glenn Denney v. State of Kansas, Its Agent, Sheriff Dayton Evans, Cherokee County, Columbus, Kansas, 436 F.2d 587, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12398 (10th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On December 9, 1969, the District Court of Cherokee County, Kansas imposed a forty (40) year sentence after Denney was convicted on charges of second-degree burglary and grand larceny. The direct appeal is now pending in the Kansas Supreme Court.

The federal district court denied habeas corpus relief for failure to exhaust available state remedies. We agree. This court has held that state remedies cannot be exhausted if an appeal from a state conviction is pending. Kessinger v. Page, 369 F.2d 799 (10th Cir. 1966) and Lee v. State of Kansas, 346 F.2d 48 (10th Cir. 1965). He must thereafter also initiate state postconviction relief pursuant to K.S.A. § 60-1507. Brown v. Crouse, 395 F.2d 755 (10th Cir. 1968) and Omo v. Crouse, 395 F.2d 757 (10th Cir. 1968).

We find no merit in Denney’s attempt to show that available state remedies were not available when this petition was filed for he had not yet been sentenced. He also claims that the exhaustion requirement is inapplicable since the relief he seeks is allegedly pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have found no reference to that Act in the record. Regardless, the Civil Rights statute cannot be used by a state prisoner to circumvent the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Smartt v. Avery, 411 F.2d 408 (6th Cir. 1969).

Our initial review of this case prompted us to assign it to the Summary Calendar because of the unsubstantial issue presented. In addition, the appellee has filed a motion to affirm. A consideration of Denney's memorandum addressing the underlying merits, along with a thorough review of the files and record in this cause, convinces us that the judgment of the district court is correct and should be affirmed.

Accordingly, the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Felvey v. Long
Tenth Circuit, 2020
Gowler v. Arnold
462 F. Supp. 427 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1977)
Edwards v. Oklahoma
436 F. Supp. 480 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1977)
Rogers v. Fuller
410 F. Supp. 187 (M.D. North Carolina, 1976)
Curley v. Bryan
362 F. Supp. 48 (D. South Carolina, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
436 F.2d 587, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-glenn-denney-v-state-of-kansas-its-agent-sheriff-dayton-evans-ca10-1971.