Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Phil WHITUS, Appellant,v.R. P. BALKCOM, Warden, Georgia State Penitentiary, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 299 F.2d 844
Feb. 26, 1962, Rehearing Denied April 11, 1962
P. Walter Jones, Albany Ga., W. R. Harrell, Macon, Ga., for appellant.
Julian Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Howard P. Wallace and Earl L. Hickman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, CAMERON, and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Appellant is held under a sentence of death by electrocution imposed in a state court of Georgia for aiding and abetting one Leon Davis in the killing of Peter Glenn. The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia on September 12, 1960, 216 Ga. 284, 116 S.E.2d 205. Justices Duckworth, Head and Quillian dissented. On February 27, 1961, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. 365 U.S. 831, 81 S.Ct. 718, 5 L.Ed.2d 708. Our disposition of this appeal renders unnecessary reaching the merits of the petition, which alleges deprivation of constitutional rights in the state trial.
The district Judge, after a hearing, denied the petition for habeas corpus on the ground that petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. 2254. Here the appellant argues that the habeas corpus remedy provided by 50-101 of the Georgia Code was not available to him.
The district judge, quoting from Wells v. Pridgen, 154 Ga. 397 at p. 400, 114 S.E. 355 at p. 357: 'It may be said that a judgment denying to a prisoner a constitutional right is void, and he may be discharged on habeas corpus', held that the petitioner did have a state remedy and that he had not exhausted it and, so holding, dismissed the motion.
Finding ourselves in full agreement with the district judge's view, we affirm his judgment.
Affirmed.