David A. Smith v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

David A. Smith v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

455 F.2d 522, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10944

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 1972

Docket71-2974

StatusPublished

This text of 455 F.2d 522 (David A. Smith 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

David A. Smith v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 455 F.2d 522, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10944 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed. 1 See Local Rule 21. 2

1

. In these habeas proceedings, the appellant has contended that his conviction was invalid on grounds that: (1) during his trial favorable evidence was suppressed and he was denied his right to compulsory process because he was not allowed to call his co-indictees to testify on his behalf, a procedure which was then proscribed by Art. 711 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and Art. 82 of the Texas Penal Code, and later declared violative of the Constitution in Washington v. Texas, 1967, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019; (2) he was coerced into signing an involuntary confession; and (3) he was denied his right to take a direct appeal by his trial court’s failure to appoint an attorney for appellate purposes.

2

. See N.L.R.B. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir., 1970, 430 F.2d 966.

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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed. 1 See Local Rule 21. 2

1

. In these habeas proceedings, the appellant has contended that his conviction was invalid on grounds that: (1) during his trial favorable evidence was suppressed and he was denied his right to compulsory process because he was not allowed to call his co-indictees to testify on his behalf, a procedure which was then proscribed by Art. 711 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and Art. 82 of the Texas Penal Code, and later declared violative of the Constitution in Washington v. Texas, 1967, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019; (2) he was coerced into signing an involuntary confession; and (3) he was denied his right to take a direct appeal by his trial court’s failure to appoint an attorney for appellate purposes.

2

. See N.L.R.B. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir., 1970, 430 F.2d 966.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 F.2d 522, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-a-smith-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack