UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. PATRICK J. HUFFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ET AL.
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.
The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies and therefore could not bring a federal habeas corpus petition.
Petitioner sought federal habeas corpus relief challenging a state parole statute. The district court dismissed the petition without reaching the meri…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner in this application for ha-beas corpus seeks to challenge the constitutionality of 61 P.S. § 331.21a, which confers on the Board of Parole of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania authority to recommit a convicted parole violator to serve the remainder of his sentence without credit for the time spent on parole.1
The district court did not reach the merits of petitioner’s contentions. It held that petitioner had not exhausted state remedies since he had not filed a petition under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act, 19 P.S. § 1180-5, in the Office of the Clerk of the Court for the County in which he was sentenced. Petitioner was sentenced in Allegheny County; he sought relief in the Commonwealth Court in Dauphin County.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c),
An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.
Petitioner has neither filed in the proper court under 19 P.S. § 1180-5, nor-pursued an appeal to the highest court in the state. He has clearly not exhausted his state remedies.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
. The constitutionality of this Section has previously been affirmed. United States ex rel. Lyle v. Maroney, 260 F.Supp. 689 (W.D.Pa.1966), cert. den. Lyle v. Maroney, 386 U.S. 998, 87 S.Ct. 1319, 18 L.Ed.2d 347 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Best v. Fay, 386 U.S. 998 (U.S. 1967)
- Lyle v. Maroney, 386 U.S. 998 (U.S. 1967)