Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04052/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Colin Jenkins
Appellant
State of Utah
Appellee

Document Text:

it' L L - u~ ~l-J! 'A , : r., UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

COLIN JENKINS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AUG O 3 1992 

ROBFRT L. HOEC~:-~ 

Clerl: 

v. 

STATE OF UTAH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 92-4052 

(D.C. No. 92-C-058 S) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Jenkins, a former Utah State inmate, appeals the 

dismissal of his prose petition seeking habeas corpus relief. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-4052 Document: 010110259030 Date Filed: 08/03/1992 Page: 1
Mr. Jenkins was convicted in December 1991 of disposing of 

stolen property. He was sentenced to thirty days in jail and 

placed on probation for three years. In his petition he stated 

his appeal to the Utah Court of Appeals was "pending." In his 

petition Mr. Jenkins complains of "[i]llegal search & seizure or 

unlawful arrest predicated on [hearsay] evidence." 

The district court dismissed Mr. Jenkins' petition for habeas 

corpus relief holding that as Mr. Jenkins had a state appeal 

pending he had failed to exhaust his state remedies as required by 

28 u.s.c. § 2254. 

Mr. Jenkins in his prose appeal to this court asserts, for 

the first time, in a conclusory fashion, the Utah higher state 

courts refuse to act. He then proceeds to argue the merits of his 

case. 

It is fundamental that a federal court may not act unless and 

until the state court has been given an opportunity to address the 

petitioner's grievances. Mr. Jenkins has failed to make this 

showing. It is also fundamental law that an appellate court may 

not address an issue unless it was first raised in the trial 

court. Mr. Jenkins fails to make this showing. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

- 2-

Appellate Case: 92-4052 Document: 010110259030 Date Filed: 08/03/1992 Page: 2