Billy Ray Harris v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Billy Ray Harris v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

387 F.2d 149, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4102

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 1967

Docket24794_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 387 F.2d 149 (Billy Ray Harris v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Billy Ray Harris v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 387 F.2d 149, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4102 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

*150 PER CURIAM:

In this habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas the appellant attacked his state court conviction of robbery in the Texas courts on a number of grounds, most of which were decided on a former appeal to this court. See Harris v. Beto, 367 F.2d 567 (5 Cir. 1966). The case was remanded to the district court for determination of the question of voluntariness of his confession. Upon remand the district court denied relief and concluded that the confession was voluntary.

On this appeal the appellant does not insist as strenuously as heretofore that his confession was not voluntary. He claims that the confession should not have been admitted into evidence because his arrest and subsequent detention were unlawful. We have considered all of appellant’s contentions and find them without merit. The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*150 PER CURIAM:

In this habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas the appellant attacked his state court conviction of robbery in the Texas courts on a number of grounds, most of which were decided on a former appeal to this court. See Harris v. Beto, 367 F.2d 567 (5 Cir. 1966). The case was remanded to the district court for determination of the question of voluntariness of his confession. Upon remand the district court denied relief and concluded that the confession was voluntary.

On this appeal the appellant does not insist as strenuously as heretofore that his confession was not voluntary. He claims that the confession should not have been admitted into evidence because his arrest and subsequent detention were unlawful. We have considered all of appellant’s contentions and find them without merit. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 F.2d 149, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billy-ray-harris-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack