Herman Boyd Smith v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Herman Boyd Smith v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

449 F.2d 1291, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7355

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 29, 1971

Docket71-1645

StatusPublished

This text of 449 F.2d 1291 (Herman Boyd Smith 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

Herman Boyd Smith v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 449 F.2d 1291, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7355 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed. 1 See Local Rule 21. 2

1

. Appellant sought relief on the grounds that (i) his arrest was illegal, (ii) he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure, (iii) he was placed in a line-up without benefit of counsel, (iv) he was not taken before a magistrate following his arrest, (v) he was not served with an indictment as required by State law, (vi) his appointed counsel was ineffective, (vii) his conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, (viii) the complaining witness gave perjured testimony, and (ix) there was a variance between the property taken and the property described in the indictment.

2

. See NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir., 1970, 430 F.2d 966.

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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed. 1 See Local Rule 21. 2

1

. Appellant sought relief on the grounds that (i) his arrest was illegal, (ii) he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure, (iii) he was placed in a line-up without benefit of counsel, (iv) he was not taken before a magistrate following his arrest, (v) he was not served with an indictment as required by State law, (vi) his appointed counsel was ineffective, (vii) his conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, (viii) the complaining witness gave perjured testimony, and (ix) there was a variance between the property taken and the property described in the indictment.

2

. See NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir., 1970, 430 F.2d 966.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 F.2d 1291, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herman-boyd-smith-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack