Edwin L. Clark v. Walter E. Craven

Ninth Circuit

Edwin L. Clark v. Walter E. Craven

437 F.2d 1202

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 1971

Docket25350_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 437 F.2d 1202 (Edwin L. Clark v. Walter E. Craven) 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

Edwin L. Clark v. Walter E. Craven, 437 F.2d 1202 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The decision of the district court denying habeas corpus relief is affirmed.

Petitioner asserts that the California statutes proscribing possession of marihuana (for which he is incarcerated) violates due process substantively because there is no basis for a finding that a harm to society exists. The decisions are against petitioner. See People v. Irvin, 264 Cal.App.2d 747, 70 Cal.Rptr. 892, and Bettis v. United States, 9 Cir., 408 F.2d 563.

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

PER CURIAM:

The decision of the district court denying habeas corpus relief is affirmed.

Petitioner asserts that the California statutes proscribing possession of marihuana (for which he is incarcerated) violates due process substantively because there is no basis for a finding that a harm to society exists. The decisions are against petitioner. See People v. Irvin, 264 Cal.App.2d 747, 70 Cal.Rptr. 892, and Bettis v. United States, 9 Cir., 408 F.2d 563.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 F.2d 1202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-l-clark-v-walter-e-craven-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack