Guadalupe Rocha Hernandez v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California

Ninth Circuit

Guadalupe Rocha Hernandez v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California

411 F.2d 619

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 1969

Docket23126

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 411 F.2d 619 (Guadalupe Rocha Hernandez v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California) 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

Guadalupe Rocha Hernandez v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California, 411 F.2d 619 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the District Court granting petitioner a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed for the reasons and on the basis of that court’s opinion, which is reported in 298 F.Supp. 682 (N.D.Cal. 1968).

However, it appears that if the state does not retry the petitioner, or if a retrial results in an acquittal, then the petitioner, has a remedy in the California state courts to determine whether the revocation of his parole from the unrelated conviction should be set aside. (Cal.Pen.Code § 3063); In re Payton, 28 Cal.2d 194, 169 P.2d 361 (1946); In re Hall, 63 Cal.2d 115, 45 Cal.Rptr. 133, 403 P.2d 389 (1965). Consequently, we conclude that a federal district court should not initially make this determination. Accordingly, we do not approve of that part of the District Court’s judgment provisionally ordering the Adult Authority to show cause why the revocation should stand.

Affirmed, as modified.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the District Court granting petitioner a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed for the reasons and on the basis of that court’s opinion, which is reported in 298 F.Supp. 682 (N.D.Cal. 1968).

However, it appears that if the state does not retry the petitioner, or if a retrial results in an acquittal, then the petitioner, has a remedy in the California state courts to determine whether the revocation of his parole from the unrelated conviction should be set aside. (Cal.Pen.Code § 3063); In re Payton, 28 Cal.2d 194, 169 P.2d 361 (1946); In re Hall, 63 Cal.2d 115, 45 Cal.Rptr. 133, 403 P.2d 389 (1965). Consequently, we conclude that a federal district court should not initially make this determination. Accordingly, we do not approve of that part of the District Court’s judgment provisionally ordering the Adult Authority to show cause why the revocation should stand.

Affirmed, as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 F.2d 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guadalupe-rocha-hernandez-v-louis-s-nelson-warden-california-state-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack