DEMPSEY EDWARD HORN, PETTTIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1970-03-18
No. 28459
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
423 F.2d 583 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant, convicted of robbery, sought federal habeas corpus relief, claiming credit for time spent on parole. The district court denied the petition…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

[*584] PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court denying, without a hearing the petition of a Texas convict for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.1

Appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of robbery by firearms and was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment. In his petition to the court below he contends that he is entitled to have the time spent on parole credited toward his sentence, thus entitling him to immediate release. The district court denied relief for failure to exhaust state remedies.

Appellant has failed to show that he has presented his contentions to the Texas courts via habeas corpus proceedings pursuant to Article 11.07, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.C.Crim.P. Therefore, the court below was correct in dismissing the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Texas v. Payton, 5th Cir. 1968, 390 F. 2d 261; Wheeler v. Beto, 5th Cir., 1969, 407 F. 2d 816. The judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F. 2d 981.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw