Hinley v. Burford, Warden

Tenth Circuit

Hinley v. Burford, Warden

183 F.2d 581

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJuly 16, 1950

Docket4074_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 183 F.2d 581 (Hinley v. Burford, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hinley v. Burford, Warden, 183 F.2d 581 (10th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant, Jake Hinley, was tried and convicted for first degree rape in the District Court of Jefferson County, Oklahoma, and sentenced to serve a life term in 'the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

Since 1938, when the life sentence was imposed, appellant has sought release from the judgment and sentence by numerous petitions for a writ in both state and federal courts. In 1943 a petition was denied by the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals (not officially reported), and by the Supreme Court of the United States, Ex parte Hinley, 320 U.S. 713, 64 S.Ct. 198, 88 L.Ed. 418. In 1945 a petition was denied by the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals, Ex parte Hinley, 155 P.2d 265; in 1947 a petition was heard and denied in the District Court of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma; another petition was denied the same year by the Criminal Court of Appeals, Ex parte Hinley, 183 P.2d 602, and certiorari was denied in the Supreme Court of the United States, Hinley v. Burford, 332 U.S. 811, 68 S.Ct. 107, 92 L.Ed. 389. In 1948 another petition was filed in the District Court of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma, and one was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, each of which was denied (not officially reported). As far as we can determine all of these petitions alleged as grounds for release that appellant’s conviction was obtained through perjured testimony, knowingly used.

In this petition for a writ on the same grounds, there is evidence to the effect that appellant was convicted on the false testimony of his daughter, the alleged rapee. But, as the trial court found, there is no testimony tending to show, or from which it can be inferred, that such testimony was knowingly and intentionally used by the prosecution to obtain the conviction.

The writ must therefore be denied. Casebeer v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 121 F.2d 914; Wagner v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 161 F.2d 601; Tilghman v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 167 F.2d 661; Cobb v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 167 F.2d 888; Story v. Burford, 10 Cir., 178 F.2d 911.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant, Jake Hinley, was tried and convicted for first degree rape in the District Court of Jefferson County, Oklahoma, and sentenced to serve a life term in 'the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

Since 1938, when the life sentence was imposed, appellant has sought release from the judgment and sentence by numerous petitions for a writ in both state and federal courts. In 1943 a petition was denied by the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals (not officially reported), and by the Supreme Court of the United States, Ex parte Hinley, 320 U.S. 713, 64 S.Ct. 198, 88 L.Ed. 418. In 1945 a petition was denied by the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals, Ex parte Hinley, 155 P.2d 265; in 1947 a petition was heard and denied in the District Court of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma; another petition was denied the same year by the Criminal Court of Appeals, Ex parte Hinley, 183 P.2d 602, and certiorari was denied in the Supreme Court of the United States, Hinley v. Burford, 332 U.S. 811, 68 S.Ct. 107, 92 L.Ed. 389. In 1948 another petition was filed in the District Court of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma, and one was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, each of which was denied (not officially reported). As far as we can determine all of these petitions alleged as grounds for release that appellant’s conviction was obtained through perjured testimony, knowingly used.

In this petition for a writ on the same grounds, there is evidence to the effect that appellant was convicted on the false testimony of his daughter, the alleged rapee. But, as the trial court found, there is no testimony tending to show, or from which it can be inferred, that such testimony was knowingly and intentionally used by the prosecution to obtain the conviction.

The writ must therefore be denied. Casebeer v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 121 F.2d 914; Wagner v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 161 F.2d 601; Tilghman v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 167 F.2d 661; Cobb v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 167 F.2d 888; Story v. Burford, 10 Cir., 178 F.2d 911.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 F.2d 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinley-v-burford-warden-ca10-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack