Howington v. Waters

Tenth Circuit

Howington v. Waters

199 F.2d 87, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3293

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 25, 1952

Docket4500_1

StatusPublished

This text of 199 F.2d 87 (Howington v. Waters) 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

Howington v. Waters, 199 F.2d 87, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3293 (10th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Petitioner, an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, under life sentence for murder, applied to the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his conviction was brought about by framed evidence, to which the prosecuting attorney was a party. In its response, the State of Oklahoma, referring to the litigation in Howington v. State, 30 Okl.Cr. 243, 235 P. 931 and Id., 35 Okl. Cr. 352, 250 P. 941, and the application for a writ of habeas corpus in the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals in which the same issues were presented and denied, alleged that the Petitioner was in lawful *88 custody, and prayed for discharge of the writ. After hearing on the application for the writ, in which the appellant was permitted to testify, the trial court denied the same.

Upon consideration of the whole record, we are of the view that the judgment of the trial court should he and is affirmed. See Gault v. Burford, 10 Cir., 173 F.2d 813; Odell v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 189 F.2d 300; Soulia v. O’Brien, 1 Cir., 188 F.2d 233; Maxwell v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 175 F.2d 318; Sampsell v. People of State of California, 9 Cir., 191 F.2d 721.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Petitioner, an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, under life sentence for murder, applied to the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his conviction was brought about by framed evidence, to which the prosecuting attorney was a party. In its response, the State of Oklahoma, referring to the litigation in Howington v. State, 30 Okl.Cr. 243, 235 P. 931 and Id., 35 Okl. Cr. 352, 250 P. 941, and the application for a writ of habeas corpus in the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals in which the same issues were presented and denied, alleged that the Petitioner was in lawful *88 custody, and prayed for discharge of the writ. After hearing on the application for the writ, in which the appellant was permitted to testify, the trial court denied the same.

Upon consideration of the whole record, we are of the view that the judgment of the trial court should he and is affirmed. See Gault v. Burford, 10 Cir., 173 F.2d 813; Odell v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 189 F.2d 300; Soulia v. O’Brien, 1 Cir., 188 F.2d 233; Maxwell v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 175 F.2d 318; Sampsell v. People of State of California, 9 Cir., 191 F.2d 721.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 F.2d 87, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howington-v-waters-ca10-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack