Charles Lannis Moses, Sr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Huntsville, Texas

Fifth Circuit

Charles Lannis Moses, Sr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Huntsville, Texas

352 F.2d 88, 1965 WL 3269

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 1965

Docket22297

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 352 F.2d 88 (Charles Lannis Moses, Sr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Huntsville, Texas) 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

Charles Lannis Moses, Sr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Huntsville, Texas, 352 F.2d 88, 1965 WL 3269 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus entered by the District Court after a full hearing. The appellant acted as his own counsel at the hearing, and the record reveals that the district judge was very patient and considerate. Appellant was allowed to raise every conceivable objection to the constitutionality of his conviction, including many points he had not exhausted in the state courts. The District Judge wrote a memorandum decision composed of eight typewritten pages, in which he thoroughly discussed and disposed of every contention raised by this appellant.

One of the complaints of petitioner, who was convicted of being an habitual offender under Texas law, was the reading of the indictment, in which two prior convictions were alleged, in the presence of the trial jury. Breen v. Beto, 341 F.2d 96, decided by this court on January 28, 1965, had not been handed down at the time Judge Sheehy rendered his decision in the instant case on November 25, 1964. His opinion on this point, however, was the same as that later reached by this court. In all other respects, his decision denying habeas corpus is likewise found to be eminently correct and the judgment of denial is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus entered by the District Court after a full hearing. The appellant acted as his own counsel at the hearing, and the record reveals that the district judge was very patient and considerate. Appellant was allowed to raise every conceivable objection to the constitutionality of his conviction, including many points he had not exhausted in the state courts. The District Judge wrote a memorandum decision composed of eight typewritten pages, in which he thoroughly discussed and disposed of every contention raised by this appellant.

One of the complaints of petitioner, who was convicted of being an habitual offender under Texas law, was the reading of the indictment, in which two prior convictions were alleged, in the presence of the trial jury. Breen v. Beto, 341 F.2d 96, decided by this court on January 28, 1965, had not been handed down at the time Judge Sheehy rendered his decision in the instant case on November 25, 1964. His opinion on this point, however, was the same as that later reached by this court. In all other respects, his decision denying habeas corpus is likewise found to be eminently correct and the judgment of denial is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 F.2d 88, 1965 WL 3269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-lannis-moses-sr-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack