At page 588 Exhaustion of state remedies pending state appeal3 citing cases“state remedies cannot be exhausted if an appeal from a state conviction is pending.”
- Loveless v. Oklahoma State of, No. 5:24-cv-00858 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 12, 2024).Pet. at 6-13. “[S]tate remedies cannot be exhausted if an appeal from a state conviction is pending.” Denney v. Kansas, 436 F.2d 587, 588 (10th Cir. 1971).
- Deephouse v. Wyoming Supreme Court, No. 24-8007 (10th Cir. June 7, 2024).unpublishedAnd no such flaws are apparent, for “state remedies cannot be exhausted if an appeal from a state conviction is pending.” Denney v. State of Kan., 436 F.2d 587, 588 (10th Cir. 1971).
- Felvey v. Long, 800 F. App'x 642 (10th Cir. 2020).unpublishedDenney v. Kansas, 436 F.2d 587, 588 (10th Cir. 1971).
Other citing cases
- Edwards v. Oklahoma, 436 F. Supp. 480 (W.D. Okla. 1977).published
- Arthur L. Hamrick v. Mr. Frank C. Norton, 436 F.2d 940 (10th Cir. 1971).published
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, Its Agent, Sheriff Dayton Evans, Cherokee County, Columbus, Kansas, Appellee
On December 9, 1969, the District Court of Cherokee County, Kansas imposed a forty (40) year sentence after Denney was convicted on charges of second-degree burglary and grand larceny. The direct appeal is now pending in the Kansas Supreme Court.
The federal district court denied habeas corpus relief for failure to exhaust available state remedies. We agree. This court has held that state remedies cannot be exhausted if an appeal from a state conviction is pending. Kessinger v. Page, 369 F.2d 799 (10th Cir. 1966) and Lee v. State of Kansas, 346 F.2d 48 (10th Cir. 1965). He must thereafter also initiate state postconviction relief pursuant to K.S.A. § 60-1507. Brown v. Crouse, 395 F.2d 755 (10th Cir. 1968) and Omo v. Crouse, 395 F.2d 757 (10th Cir. 1968).
We find no merit in Denney’s attempt to show that available state remedies were not available when this petition was filed for he had not yet been sentenced. He also claims that the exhaustion requirement is inapplicable since the relief he seeks is allegedly pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have found no reference to that Act in the record. Regardless, the Civil Rights statute cannot be used by a state prisoner to circumvent the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Smartt v. Avery, 411 F.2d 408 (6th Cir. 1969).
Our initial review of this case prompted us to assign it to the Summary Calendar because of the unsubstantial issue presented. In addition, the appellee has filed a motion to affirm. A consideration of Denney's memorandum addressing the underlying merits, along with a thorough review of the files and record in this cause, convinces us that the judgment of the district court is correct and should be affirmed.
Accordingly, the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.