ROBERT MULLER TAYLOR, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF MINNESOTA, RESPONDENT

8th Cir. | 1971-11-16
No. 71-1654
450 F.2d 1110 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1971)

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 a petitioner who raised federal constitutional claims on direct appeal, which were reviewed and rejected by the state's highest court, has exhausted state remedies for federal habeas corpus purposes.


Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner, convicted in state court, sought federal habeas corpus relief on grounds identical to those previously rejected by the Minnesota Supreme C…

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.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, a Minnesota state prisoner, seeks a certificate of probable cause to enable him to appeal the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by the federal district court. Petitioner was convicted in state court and on May 14, 1971, his conviction was affirmed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. State v. Taylor, 187 N.W. 2d 129 (Minn.1971). The grounds set forth in his petition for habeas corpus in federal court are identical to the ones set forth in his brief and reviewed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Included within said grounds are claims allegedly based on denials of federal constitutional rights. On October 1, 1971, the federal district court dismissed Taylor’s petition because of the fact that petitioner had failed to avail himself of the state post-conviction procedure under Minn. Stat.Ann. §§ 590.01, 590.05 (1969). We find, under the circumstances existing, this to be error. In Kennedy v. Sigler, 397 F. 2d 556 (8 Cir. 1968), this court said:

“[T]he Supreme Court of Nebraska has already ruled directly on Kennedy’s present claim in the appeal he took from his conviction and sentences. [cite omitted] And that court very clearly has indicated that, in the absence 'of a real miscarriage of justice’, issues litigated on direct appeal are not to be relitigated in a proceeding under the post-conviction statute, [cite omitted] We therefore conclude that Kennedy has satisfied the requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) that he first utilize the state procedure. See Donnell v. Nash, 323 F. 2d 850, 851 (8 Cir. 1963), cert, denied 376 U.S. 924, 84 S.Ct. 686, 11 L.Ed.2d 619.”

See also Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 447, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953); Davis v. Sigler, 415 F. 2d 1159 (8 Cir. 1969); Dove v. Peyton, 343 F. 2d 210 (4 Cir. 1965).

No new grounds are set forth in the petition. Taylor has presented all his claims to the Minnesota Supreme Court on direct appeal; these have been reviewed and rejected. Under the circumstances, petitioner has exhausted his state remedies. The certificate for probable cause is granted; the cause is remanded to the federal district court for review of the merits of the constitutional issues presented.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw