Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

464 F.2d 560

Docket No. 72-1628

Bryant v. Bailey

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided July 13, 1972.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 16, 1972.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1972-07-13

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1983

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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 · Isadore D. Blumenthal v. Leon Reiner and Wife, Bertha Reiner, (Two Cases). Leon Reiner and Wife, Bertha Reiner v. Isadore D. Blumenthal

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1972-07-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2Ralph I. Knowles, Jr., Drake, Knowles & Still, University, Ala., for petitioner-appellant.

¶3William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., J. Victor Price, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for respondents-appellees.

¶4Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7Wayland Bryant was convicted in Alabama State Court of assault with intent to murder. He was sentenced to serve five years in Alabama state prisons. He has now filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that the State’s failure to provide him with a free transcript of his preliminary hearing constituted a violation of due process of law and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He unsuccessfully sought similar *561relief in a petition for writ of mandamus filed in the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and in a petition for a writ of certiorari filed in the Supreme Court of Alabama successively. His appeal on the merits from his conviction is presently pending and undecided in the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. The District Court correctly held that he had failed to exhaust state remedies. The judgment is affirmed. See Williams v. Bailey, 5 Cir., 1972, 247 F.2d 463 which decided the same issue adversely to appellant’s position.

¶8Affirmed.

¶9ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

¶10PER CURIAM:

¶11The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.

/464/f2d/560 · .json · Public domain