G. W. Carroll v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

G. W. Carroll v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

402 F.2d 61

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 1969

Docket26197

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 402 F.2d 61 (G. W. Carroll 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

G. W. Carroll v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 402 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

G. W. Carroll appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.

The appellant is confined by authority of a life sentence imposed under Article 63 of the Texas Penal Code, upon his third conviction for a felony. The judgment was affirmed upon direct appeal. Carroll v. State, 1957, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 511, 301 S.W.2d 108.

The appellant’s principal contentions are of (1) double jeopardy; (2) use of perjured testimony at his trial; (3) use of a void prior conviction for enhancement of sentence; and (4) interference by the state with his attempt to obtain the testimony of a witness.

The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which the appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, testified. The court stated detailed reasons for denying the writ in a presently unpublished memorandum and order.

er , „ „ , ,, ,. We have carefully examined the entire j . , ... . , . record, including the transcript of the hearing in the district court. We have concluded that the district court’s decision is correct in point of law, and that its findings of fact were not “clearly erroneous.” Tyler v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1968, 391 F.2d 993; DiPrima v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 373 F.2d 797, cert. denied 390 U.S. 1012, 88 S.Ct. 1266, 20 L.Ed.2d 164 (1968); King v. Heard, 5 Cir. 1962, 310 F.2d 127, cert. denied 375 U.S. 854, 84 S.Ct. 114,11 L.Ed.2d 81 (1963).

The judgment is Affirmed

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

PER CURIAM:

G. W. Carroll appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.

The appellant is confined by authority of a life sentence imposed under Article 63 of the Texas Penal Code, upon his third conviction for a felony. The judgment was affirmed upon direct appeal. Carroll v. State, 1957, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 511, 301 S.W.2d 108.

The appellant’s principal contentions are of (1) double jeopardy; (2) use of perjured testimony at his trial; (3) use of a void prior conviction for enhancement of sentence; and (4) interference by the state with his attempt to obtain the testimony of a witness.

The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which the appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, testified. The court stated detailed reasons for denying the writ in a presently unpublished memorandum and order.

er , „ „ , ,, ,. We have carefully examined the entire j . , ... . , . record, including the transcript of the hearing in the district court. We have concluded that the district court’s decision is correct in point of law, and that its findings of fact were not “clearly erroneous.” Tyler v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1968, 391 F.2d 993; DiPrima v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 373 F.2d 797, cert. denied 390 U.S. 1012, 88 S.Ct. 1266, 20 L.Ed.2d 164 (1968); King v. Heard, 5 Cir. 1962, 310 F.2d 127, cert. denied 375 U.S. 854, 84 S.Ct. 114,11 L.Ed.2d 81 (1963).

The judgment is Affirmed

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 F.2d 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-w-carroll-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack