Burl Eugene Lyles v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Burl Eugene Lyles v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

363 F.2d 503, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5507

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 13, 1966

Docket20658_1

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 363 F.2d 503 (Burl Eugene Lyles 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

Burl Eugene Lyles v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 363 F.2d 503, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5507 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An earlier judgment of this court affirming the denial by the trial court of a petition for habeas corpus was vacated by the United States Supreme Court and the case was “remanded to the United States Court of Appeals [for the Fifth Circuit] for reconsideration in light of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed. 246.” Lyles v. Beto, 379 U.S. 648, 85 S.Ct. 613, 13 L.Ed.2d 552.

We have reconsidered this case in light of Massiah and in light of Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653. We conclude that the opinion of the Supreme Court in Johnson and Cassidy, Petitioners, v. State of New Jersey, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882, rules this case. The *504 trial in this case began long before June 13, 1966, the cut off date now announced by the Supreme Court for the application of the requirement of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

The only substantial issue left in this case being the question whether the eliciting of a voluntary confession from the appellant while in custody in the police station at a time when he had neither counsel nor had been advised of his right to counsel deprived him of his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment, that issue has now been foreclosed.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

An earlier judgment of this court affirming the denial by the trial court of a petition for habeas corpus was vacated by the United States Supreme Court and the case was “remanded to the United States Court of Appeals [for the Fifth Circuit] for reconsideration in light of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed. 246.” Lyles v. Beto, 379 U.S. 648, 85 S.Ct. 613, 13 L.Ed.2d 552.

We have reconsidered this case in light of Massiah and in light of Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653. We conclude that the opinion of the Supreme Court in Johnson and Cassidy, Petitioners, v. State of New Jersey, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882, rules this case. The *504 trial in this case began long before June 13, 1966, the cut off date now announced by the Supreme Court for the application of the requirement of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

The only substantial issue left in this case being the question whether the eliciting of a voluntary confession from the appellant while in custody in the police station at a time when he had neither counsel nor had been advised of his right to counsel deprived him of his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment, that issue has now been foreclosed.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 F.2d 503, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burl-eugene-lyles-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack