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
Richard Lee Davidson and Walter Vernon Thomas, Appellants, v. Warden J. H. Klinger, California Men's Colony, and Warden A. L. Oliver, Folsom Prison, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 411 F.2d 746
May 27, 1969 Rehearing Denied July 9, 1969
Joseph L. Armijo, Jr. (argued), Torrance, Cal., for appellant.
Ronald M. George (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY and BROWNING Circuit Judges, and POWELL, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
In this habeas proceeding appellants ask a federal court to set aside their state criminal convictions which are still pending on appeal in a state appellate court.
While the federal constitutional question which they present in this federal habeas proceeding may not be available to them on their state appeal, that appeal may result in reversal on some other ground, thereby mooting the federal question.
Moreover, if the federal question is not available to appellants on the pending state appeal, it may be available to them in state post-conviction proceedings instituted after disposition of that appeal. The fact that appellants' state post-conviction proceedings, instituted pending the state appeal, resulted in the denial of relief, is not dispositive as to the availability of a state post-conviction remedy after the state appellate court has acted upon the appeal.
Appellants have not exhausted their available state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1964); Christiansen v. O'Connor, 9 Cir., 378 F.2d 364. On this ground, and without prejudice to appellants' right to raise a constitutional question in a federal court at the proper time, the order denying the application is
Affirmed.