Dean L. Bratt v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rito G. Canales v. J. E. Baker, Warden (10th Cir. 1969)
- Petition of Marc Barry, Otherwise Known as Marcel Barry Stern, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Marcel Barry Stern (3d Cir. 1968)
- William Nay Wood v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden (10th Cir. 1968)
- United States of America Ex Rel. Henry L. Anderson H-6046 v. Alfred T. Rundle (3d Cir. 1968)
- George E. Brown v. The State of New Jersey (3d Cir. 1968)
- United States ex rel. Cox v. Rundle (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1968)
- United States of America Ex Rel. John W. Singer v. David N. Myers, Superintendent (3d Cir. 1967)
- Jack Allen Barber v. Ray H. Page, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary (10th Cir. 1966)
- James William Smith v. State of Kansas (10th Cir. 1966)
- George Wm. Daegele v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary (10th Cir. 1965)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The appeal is from an order, entered without a hearing, denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Appellant was sentenced in the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, and is now confined in the Kansas State Penitentiary pursuant to that sentence. The Order of Dismissal appealed from shows that the dismissal was grounded upon petitioner’s failure to allege that he had exhausted his post-conviction remedies under K.S.A. 60-1507. Counsel for appellant argues here that such remedies are inadequate and ineffective, with which argument we do not agree. For us to say that the statutory remedy is inadequate and ineffective, we would have to assume that the Kansas courts will construe the statute so as to make it inadequate and ineffective, which we will not do.
K.S.A. 60-1507 follows almost exactly the wording of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, which statute has been construed to be “the substantial equivalent of federal habeas corpus.” Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963).
We agree with the trial court that appellant has not exhausted the remedies available to him in the courts of Kansas) and that he has failed to show that circumstances exist rendering such state process inadequate and ineffective.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.