Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

188 F.2d 521

Docket No. 11198.

Reed v. Buchanan

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 12, 1951.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1951-04-12

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1951

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Darr v. Burford · Smith v. Buchanan · Jones v. Commonwealth

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1951-04-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1C. Ewbank Tucker, Louisville, Ky., for appellant.

¶2W. Owen Keller, John B. Browning, Frankfort, Ky., Charles W. Anderson, Jr., Louisville, Ky., for appellees.

¶3Before SIMONS, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This appeal was heard on the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties.

¶6And it appearing that there was and is available to appellant a remedy in the Courts of Kentucky in the nature of a habeas corpus proceeding, Sections 399 to 429-2, Criminal Code of Practice of Kentucky, or in the nature of Writ of Coram Nobis, Jones v. Commonwealth, 269 Ky. 779, 108 S.W.2d 816; Smith v. Buchanan, 291 Ky. 44, 49, 163 S.W.2d 5, 145 A.L.R. 813, which remedy is effective to protect the rights of the appellant asserted by him in this proceeding, but which has not been availed of by him;

¶7And appellant having thus failed to exhaust the remedies available to him in the State Court as required by Section 2254, Title 28 U.S.Code;

¶8*522It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court dismissing the Writ of Habeas Corpus be affirmed. Ex parte Williams, 317 U.S. 604, 63 S.Ct. 431, 87 L.Ed. 491; Bacon v. Sullivan, 5 Cir., 181 F.2d 177; Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761.

/188/f2d/521 · .json · Public domain