Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06377/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06377-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Appellee
Ron Champion
Appellee
Billy G. Logue
Appellant

Document Text:

FIT.b.J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE1Gcilted 8tat£;r.~,mt 91 Appea}P Tenth ..,.rcu.1t 

TENTH CIRCUIT MAY 10 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

BILLY G. LOGUE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

RON CHAMPION and ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

No. 92-6377 

(D.C. No. CIV-92-1776-A) 

(W. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District 

Court for the District of Oklahoma denying habeas relief sought 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Appellant's motion for a 

certificate of probable cause and motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis are granted. We affirm for the reasons stated below. 

*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: 92-6377 Document: 010110114097 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 1 
Appellant Billy Gene Logue was convicted by the District 

Court of Garvin County of knowingly concealing stolen property and 

was sentenced to serve thirty years. The judgment was affirmed by 

the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the 

federal district court. The district court found that three of 

the five grounds raised by Appellant had not been clearly 

presented to the Court of Criminal Appeals on direct appeal, and 

that Appellant had not pursued state post-conviction remedies. 

Accordingly, the district court held that Appellant had not 

exhausted his state remedies as to all of the claims which allowed 

full and fair consideration by the state court, and dismissed the 

petition without prejudice. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus shall not be granted unless the applicant has exhausted •• j 

available state remedies. If he has a right under state law to 

J 

raise the question presented in federal court, the applicant has 

- not exhausted his state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). Although 

a federal court has discretion to consider the merits of an 

application even if state remedies have not been exhausted, "there 

is a strong presumption in favor of requiring the prisoner to 

' 

pursue his available state remedies II Granberry v. Green, 

481 U.S. 129, 131. The state court must have a meaningful 

opportunity to hear the claim before it may be brought in a 

federal habeas proceeding. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 

276. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6377 Document: 010110114097 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 2 
♦ 

Because the Court of Criminal Appeals in this case did not 

have a fair opportunity to hear all of the issues raised in this 

petition, and as noted by the district court, Appellant still has 

state post-conviction remedies available to him, federal review of 

his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. See Rose v. 

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509. Appellant's petition is dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court for the 

District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6377 Document: 010110114097 Date Filed: 05/10/1993 Page: 3