From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ector v. Smith

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 12, 1971
438 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1971)

Opinion

No. 30733 Summary Calendar.

Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

February 12, 1971.

James E. Ector, pro se.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles B. Merrill, Jr., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.

Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.



This is an appeal from the denial of a Georgia state prisoner's petition for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Upon a plea of guilty to robbery, Ector was sentenced to life imprisonment. His sole contention is that negroes were systematically excluded from the grand jury that indicted him.

After a hearing the Superior Court of Tattnall County, Georgia, denied relief. Without appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, Ector filed his petition in the District Court. The writ was denied because the court properly found that Ector had failed to exhaust available state remedies. Fay v. Noia, 1963, 372 U.S. 391, 82 S.Ct. 822, 9 L. Ed.2d 827; Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1970, 427 F.2d 921; Donlavey v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1970, 426 F.2d 800; Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1969, 410 F.2d 144; Goodwin v. Holman, 5 Cir. 1966, 361 F.2d 403.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Ector v. Smith

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 12, 1971
438 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1971)
Case details for

Ector v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:James E. ECTOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S. Lamont SMITH, Warden, Georgia…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Feb 12, 1971

Citations

438 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1971)

Citing Cases

Sutton v. Jones

The appellant's allegations concerning the illegality of his conviction will not be adjudicated upon this…

Loren v. State of Texas

Thus we conclude that the Federal District Court was correct in denying Appellant relief, as it should enter…