Task: songer_stpolicy

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the interpretation of state or local law, executive order, administrative regulation, doctrine, or rule of procedure by the court favor the appellant?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM:
Dudley Lewis Lee is serving a life sentence upon conviction of robbery in the Court of Record in and for Escambia County, Florida. He petitioned the United States District Court for habeas corpus relief relative to this judgment of conviction. The district court denied the petition on grounds of failure to exhaust all available State remedies. We reverse that ruling and remand the cause for further proceedings.
In his habeas petition filed below, the appellant showed that he utilized his remedy provided by former Rule 1.850, now Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P., 33 F.S.A. He filed a motion to vacate the conviction and sentence in his trial court; and he appealed the denial of relief to the appropriate Florida District Court of Appeal, 260 So.2d 854. Lee did not petition the Florida Supreme Court for certiorari to review the affirmance, nor did he file a petition for habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court.
The United States District Court held that Lee’s failure to file a petition for habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court barred federal habeas relief on grounds of failure to exhaust all available state remedies as is required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The district court cited Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So.2d 577 (Fla.1967), as indicating that this is a viable remedy for a Florida state prisoner.
Hollingshead, however, involved the situation of alleged denial of direct appeal rights. This is an exception to the usual Florida rule that the ordinary state post-conviction remedy is by motion to vacate the judgment filed in the sentencing court, with appeal to the appropriate Florida District Court of Appeal. Johnson v. Wainwright, 453 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1971). Unless there are unusual circumstances not present here, such as conflict with the decision of another District Court of Appeal, there is no exhaustion requirement of application to the Florida Supreme Court for certiorari. Williams v. Wainwright, 452 F.2d 775 (5th Cir. 1971). As shown by our opinion in that case, and at n. 17 of Bartz v. Wainwright, 451 F.2d 663, 666 (5th Cir. 1971), the direct habeas petition to the Florida Supreme Court of a convicted state prisoner is rarely entertained on its merits, and is granted even more rarely.
It would not only be unrealistic for the prisoner, but also would impose unnecessary burdens on the Florida Supreme Court, to require that state prisoners be generally required to petition the Court for habeas corpus before they can be considered to have exhausted available state remedies. The order of the district court denying habeas corpus relief is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Vacated and remanded.
. In this action, the petitioner alleges that (1) ineffective court appointed counsel and (2) prejudicial remarks by the county prosecutor denied his federal constitutional rights. Thus he now raises allegations different from his claim of denial of counsel during a line-up identification covered by his previous unsuccessful petition for federal habeas corpus relief. Lee v. Wainwright, CA # 2280 (N.D.Fla., Dec. 29, 1970) ; certificate of prob. cause denied (5th Cir. 1971).

Question: Did the interpretation of state or local law, executive order, administrative regulation, doctrine, or rule of procedure by the court favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D