Court Opinion

ID: 9494760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:45:45.306148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:35.876823
License: Public Domain

VAN GRAAFEILAND, J.,
concurring.
During the past fifteen years, Cesar Ramirez was convicted following separate trials of murdering his former wife and raping and sodomizing his teenage daughter. Both convictions were challenged by petitions for habeas corpus for wrongs leading to the convictions, and both of those petitions were denied based upon alleged failure to exhaust state remedies.
In Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion in Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 8, 103 S.Ct. 276, 74 L.Ed.2d 3 (1982), he made the following cogent observation concerning federal writs of habeas corpus:
Few issues consume as much of the scarce time of federal judges as the question whether a state prisoner adequately exhausted his state remedies before filing a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus.
Because elaboration on the issues herein will exacerbate the delay in their resolution, I feel that the best procedure for me to follow is simply to concur in my colleagues’ opinion, which I do.