Edward J. A. Albrecht v. Louis Nelson

Ninth Circuit

Edward J. A. Albrecht v. Louis Nelson

462 F.2d 623

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 24, 1972

Docket26635

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 462 F.2d 623 (Edward J. A. Albrecht v. Louis Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edward J. A. Albrecht v. Louis Nelson, 462 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Albrecht, a California prisoner convicted of murder, appeals from the District Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The basis of Al-brecht’s petition was his claim that his guilty plea was involuntary because it was the product of coercion on the part of his trial counsel. The District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing, but it could find no merit to Albrecht’s contention. We affirm.

From the evidence adduced at the hearing, the District Court determined: (1) Albrecht was influenced; but not legally coerced, by his counsel, and (2) Al-brecht’s plea was primarily motivated by his fear of the death penalty which was based upon his affection for his child. From these facts, the court concluded that the plea was not constitutionally infirm.

We cannot, of course, disturb the challenged decision unless it is clearly erroneous. See Moss v. Craven, 427 F.2d 139 (9th Cir. 1970); Knowles v. Gladden, 378 F.2d 761 (9th Cir. 1967). On the record before us, we cannot find error. There was substantial justification for concluding, as did the District Court, that Albrecht’s plea was valid. See Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790, 90 S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785 (1970); McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); Knowles v. Gladden, supra.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Albrecht, a California prisoner convicted of murder, appeals from the District Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The basis of Al-brecht’s petition was his claim that his guilty plea was involuntary because it was the product of coercion on the part of his trial counsel. The District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing, but it could find no merit to Albrecht’s contention. We affirm.

From the evidence adduced at the hearing, the District Court determined: (1) Albrecht was influenced; but not legally coerced, by his counsel, and (2) Al-brecht’s plea was primarily motivated by his fear of the death penalty which was based upon his affection for his child. From these facts, the court concluded that the plea was not constitutionally infirm.

We cannot, of course, disturb the challenged decision unless it is clearly erroneous. See Moss v. Craven, 427 F.2d 139 (9th Cir. 1970); Knowles v. Gladden, 378 F.2d 761 (9th Cir. 1967). On the record before us, we cannot find error. There was substantial justification for concluding, as did the District Court, that Albrecht’s plea was valid. See Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790, 90 S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785 (1970); McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); Knowles v. Gladden, supra.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 F.2d 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-j-a-albrecht-v-louis-nelson-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack