Carlos Salinas v. State of Indiana
Docket: 94-2194
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; May 1, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Carlos Salinas, a pro se state prisoner, appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254, claiming violations of his rights to confront accusers, an impartial jury, and effective counsel. Salinas was convicted in Indiana for cocaine distribution and sentenced to sixteen years. His conviction was affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, and no further appeal was made to the Indiana Supreme Court. Salinas later sought sentence modification and post-conviction relief, during which he faced issues with representation and delays attributed to his appointed public defenders. After various legal motions and an interlocutory appeal that was denied, Salinas filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court, which was dismissed for lack of exhaustion of state remedies since his state post-conviction petition remained pending. The Seventh Circuit Court affirms the district court's decision, emphasizing the requirement to exhaust all available state remedies before seeking federal relief. Salinas' post-conviction petition is pending, with no significant action taken for over two years, aside from responses from the State of Indiana in early 1993. The court acknowledges that excessive delays by state courts could allow a district court to consider the merits of a habeas corpus petition, as established in prior cases. However, delays caused by deficiencies in post-conviction representation do not equate to exhausted state remedies, as defendants can request to proceed pro se. Salinas admits that the delay was due to his court-appointed counsel and asserts he has diligently sought to exhaust state remedies, but his efforts were hindered by public defender issues. He could have mitigated the delay by asking for his counsel to withdraw and representing himself but chose not to. The court expresses disapproval of the public defender's delay yet concludes that this does not excuse the exhaustion requirement. As a result, the judgment is affirmed, and the case will proceed based solely on the briefs and record, as no party requested oral argument. Salinas’ first counsel withdrew early in the process, and his subsequent counsel did not take action on his petition, with no indication of delay attributable to the Indiana Superior Court.