James Bowland v. Harry Tinsley, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary

Tenth Circuit

James Bowland v. Harry Tinsley, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary

268 F.2d 666, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3582

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJune 25, 1959

Docket6133

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 F.2d 666 (James Bowland v. Harry Tinsley, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary) 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

James Bowland v. Harry Tinsley, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary, 268 F.2d 666, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3582 (10th Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of El Paso County, Colorado, of robbery under aggravated circumstances and was sentenced to imprisonment for 25 to 50 years. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, 136 Colo. 57, 314 P.2d 685, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, 355 U.S. 934, 78 S.Ct. 418, 2 L.Ed.2d 417. Appellant then brought habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The only allegation in the petition worthy of note was that the prosecuting officials knowingly used perjured testimony at the appellant’s state court jury trial to obtain conviction.

The trial court, after noting certain procedural difficulties, held that the evidence failed to establish that perjury was committed at the trial and that assuming perjury was committed it was not established that the state law officials had knowledge thereof.

We have examined the record submitted to us by the appellant. The evidence as to perjury and knowledge is conflicting. As there is adequate support for the findings of the trial court, they are not clearly erroneous and must be upheld. Williams v. United States, 10 Cir., 267 F. 2d 559.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of El Paso County, Colorado, of robbery under aggravated circumstances and was sentenced to imprisonment for 25 to 50 years. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, 136 Colo. 57, 314 P.2d 685, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, 355 U.S. 934, 78 S.Ct. 418, 2 L.Ed.2d 417. Appellant then brought habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The only allegation in the petition worthy of note was that the prosecuting officials knowingly used perjured testimony at the appellant’s state court jury trial to obtain conviction.

The trial court, after noting certain procedural difficulties, held that the evidence failed to establish that perjury was committed at the trial and that assuming perjury was committed it was not established that the state law officials had knowledge thereof.

We have examined the record submitted to us by the appellant. The evidence as to perjury and knowledge is conflicting. As there is adequate support for the findings of the trial court, they are not clearly erroneous and must be upheld. Williams v. United States, 10 Cir., 267 F. 2d 559.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 F.2d 666, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-bowland-v-harry-tinsley-warden-of-the-colorado-state-penitentiary-ca10-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack