Public-domain · open source

439 F.2d 264

Docket No. 30849 Summary Calendar.*

Porter v. Wainwright

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

February 16, 1971.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-02-16

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1973

8 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Wheeler v. Beto · Hess Shipping Corporation v. The Ss Charles Lykes, in Rem and Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc.,defendant-Appellant. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc. v. Hess Shipping Corporation and the St. Hess Voyager, in Rem

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1971-02-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Charles A. Porter, pro se.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, Fla., for respondent-appellee.

Before WISDOM, COLEMAN, and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court denying the petition of a Florida state prisoner for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

In this habeas corpus case the United States District Court denied relief on the ground that Porter had failed to exhaust state remedies. A study of the record reveals that this, indeed, is true. Porter's allegations with reference to the denial of a direct appeal have never been considered by a state appellate court, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Wheeler v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1969, 407 F.2d 816; Harrison v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1970, 424 F.2d 633.

Affirmed.

Notes:

[1] Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I