Walter Thomas, Jr. v. James E. Decker, Sheriff, Dallas County, Texas
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Walter Thomas, Jr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections (5th Cir. 1972)
- Donald Harold Bartz v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida (5th Cir. 1971)
- Walter Thomas, Jr. v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections (5th Cir. 1979)
- Joe Cephas Singleton v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections (5th Cir. 1974)
- James Graves v. State of Louisiana (5th Cir. 1973)
- Sander v. State of Ohio (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1973)
- Leon McCluster v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida (5th Cir. 1972)
- George Charles Imhoff v. Sheriff Clarence Jones, Dallas County, Texas (5th Cir. 1972)
- Julius Hairston v. State of Alabama (5th Cir. 1972)
- Shuler v. Wainwright (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1972)
- Rudd v. State of Florida (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1972)
- Harper v. Wainwright (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1971)
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
This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the petition of a Texas state convict for the writ of habeas corpus. We vacate and remand.
Walter Thomas, the petitioner, is serving a 99-year sentence for robbery by assault, having been convicted upon trial by jury. Thomas v. State, Tex.Cr.App.1970, 451 S.W.2d 907.
In his habeas petition Thomas alleges that he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure and that he was forced to participate in a pre-trial lineup without benefit of counsel. The district court denied relief for failure to exhaust state remedies.
The record shows that the petitioner has not applied for collateral relief in any state court. He did, however, present to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on direct appeal the same issues he raised in this proceeding. That court fully discussed the issues. Thomas v. State, supra, and Thornton v. State, Tex.Cr.App.1970, 451 S.W.2d 898, a companion case.
Since allegations on which his application for habeas is based were fully developed at his state trial and upon direct appeal to the highest state court, he need not relitigate them in state habeas proceedings as a prerequisite to an application for habeas corpus relief to a federal district court. Brown v. Allen, 1953, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469; Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1969, 410 F.2d 144. The state has had the opportunity, required by comity and by statute, to exercise its fact-finding and law-deciding functions.
In short, the petitioner exhausted his state remedies within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is now entitled to have his allegations considered on the merits in a federal forum.
The judgment below is vacated and the case remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.