Edward Garrett Hoskins v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

Fifth Circuit

Edward Garrett Hoskins v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

472 F.2d 158, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6167

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 1972

Docket72-2500

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 472 F.2d 158 (Edward Garrett Hoskins v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida) 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

Edward Garrett Hoskins v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, 472 F.2d 158, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6167 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal follows an evidentiary hearing mandated in Hoskins v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1971, 440 F.2d 69. On remand the District Court adopted the findings of a special master who found that there was no prejudice to appellant from the delay between indictment and trial.

We must follow Henderson v. Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, State of Alabama, 5 Cir., 1968, 392 F.2d 551 — which predates Smith v. Hooey, 1969, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed. 2d 607 and is still the law for the times in question here — and likewise conclude that there was no inordinate delay. The state did not then have a duty to secure appellant’s release from the custody of the Georgia prison authorities or later from the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for the purpose of bringing him to trial in Florida.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal follows an evidentiary hearing mandated in Hoskins v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1971, 440 F.2d 69. On remand the District Court adopted the findings of a special master who found that there was no prejudice to appellant from the delay between indictment and trial.

We must follow Henderson v. Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, State of Alabama, 5 Cir., 1968, 392 F.2d 551 — which predates Smith v. Hooey, 1969, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed. 2d 607 and is still the law for the times in question here — and likewise conclude that there was no inordinate delay. The state did not then have a duty to secure appellant’s release from the custody of the Georgia prison authorities or later from the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for the purpose of bringing him to trial in Florida.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 F.2d 158, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-garrett-hoskins-v-louie-l-wainwright-director-division-of-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack