Milton D. Lizana v. State of Alabama, 394 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Milton D. Lizana v. State of Alabama, 394 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: McArthur Harris v. State of Alabama (ca5, 1970-07-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) McArthur Harris v. State of Alabama
5th Cir. · 1970 · confidence medium
Bell v. State of Alabama, 5 Cir., 1966, 367 F.2d 243 , and Lizana v. State of Alabama, 5 Cir., 1968, 394 F.2d 512 .
cited Cited "see" Harris Percy Wynn v. Samuel L. Smith, Warden, Georgia State Prison, Reidsville, Ga.
5th Cir. · 1971 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Lizana v. Alabama, 394 F.2d 512 (C.A.5 1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Milton D. LIZANA, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA, Appellee
25505_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 16, 1968.
394 F.2d 512
1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6920
Milton D. Lizana, pro se., David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for appellee.
Tuttle, Simpson, Brewster.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The district court denied this habeas corpus petition filed by an Alabama state prisoner for failure “to exhaust his presently available State remedies.” It is true that appellant has failed to appeal from the denial of his coram nobis petition, and the six-month period allowed for appeal from that order of May 21, 1967, had not expired when he filed his petition below on September 25, 1967, or when the court denied that petition. See Allen v. State, 42 Ala.App. 9, 150 So.2d 399, 401 (1963). Nevertheless, the appeal period has now expired and there is no state remedy presently available to determine the validity of appellant’s claims which concern matters dehors the record. Hence, we hold that the exhaustion requirements of 28 U.S. C.A. § 2254 have been met, since appellant presently has no available state remedy. Bell v. State of Alabama, 5 Cir., 367 F.2d 243.

We conclude, therefore, that a return and an evidentiary hearing must be held.

The judgment is reversed.