Legal Opinion
Raymond Ross v. Walter E. Craven
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 4, 1973No. 72-2814PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM :
Ross’s federal habeas petition was dismissed on the ground that he failed to exhaust his state remedies. Ross pursued his direct attack through the California appellate system to a denial of hearing by the California Supreme Court. His habeas petition filed in the California Supreme Court was denied on the merits. He had no more state remedies.
The dismissal order appears to have been based on two erroneous assumptions : (1) Ross did not exhaust his state collateral remedies because he filed his habeas petition in the California Supreme Court instead of in a state trial court, and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- WILWORDING Et Al. v. SWENSON, WARDENSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- In Re DixonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- People v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- In Re WaltreusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- Ralph Castro v. John H. Klinger, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
3Cited by6 opinions
- Harris v. Superior Court of State of California for the County of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- Benhoff v. ShermanDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
- Benhoff v. ShermanDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
- Kane v. GasteloDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
- Paul Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Petchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Co-Respondents, the State Ofcalifornia, Real Party in Interest, Fawn Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles, County, Co-Respondents, the People Ofthe State of California, Real Party in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.