concluding that habeas petitioner’s claim that “court appointed counsel refused to ask for a new trial or to appeal” was “without merit because petitioner has not availed himself of the post-conviction procedure provided by Kentucky laws”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that habeas petitioner’s claim that “court appointed counsel refused to ask for a new trial or to appeal” was “without merit because petitioner has not availed himself of the post-conviction procedure provided by Kentucky laws”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner-appellant is an inmate of Kentucky State Penitentiary at Eddyville under sentence for storehouse breaking. He appeals from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
The grounds stated in the petition are: (1) evidence against petitioner in the state court was inadmissible and insufficient, (2) petitioner was denied a fair and impartial trial, and (3) court appointed counsel refused to ask for a new trial or to appeal.
Grounds (1) and (2) are insufficient because they are merely conclusions of the petitioner unsupported by any factual definition. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 , 73 S.Ct. 397 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953).
Ground (3) is without merit because petitioner has not availed himself of the post-conviction procedure provided by Kentucky laws. Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure 11.42.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.