James Edward Flemings v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California

Ninth Circuit

James Edward Flemings v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California

365 F.2d 267, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5628

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 1966

Docket20478_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 365 F.2d 267 (James Edward Flemings v. Lawrence E. Wilson, 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

James Edward Flemings v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California, 365 F.2d 267, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5628 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We agree with the District Court that of the grounds upon which appellant relies in seeking discharge in habeas corpus the only one presenting a Constitutional issue is his contention that an incriminating statement was used against him contrary to Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964) and that the rule of that case should be retroactively applied to his trial. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) disposes of this contention.

We do not consider those grounds for relief which appellant asserted for the first time in his notice of appeal and in his briefs filed in this court. We may properly consider “factual assertions” appearing in such papers which “clarify and particularize” allegations in a petition for habeas corpus (Wright v. Dickson, 336 F.2d 878, 881, n. 2 (9th Cir. 1964), but it would not be appropriate for us to pass upon independent grounds for relief which were not submitted to the District Court, and which, indeed, may not have been submitted to the state courts.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

We agree with the District Court that of the grounds upon which appellant relies in seeking discharge in habeas corpus the only one presenting a Constitutional issue is his contention that an incriminating statement was used against him contrary to Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964) and that the rule of that case should be retroactively applied to his trial. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) disposes of this contention.

We do not consider those grounds for relief which appellant asserted for the first time in his notice of appeal and in his briefs filed in this court. We may properly consider “factual assertions” appearing in such papers which “clarify and particularize” allegations in a petition for habeas corpus (Wright v. Dickson, 336 F.2d 878, 881, n. 2 (9th Cir. 1964), but it would not be appropriate for us to pass upon independent grounds for relief which were not submitted to the District Court, and which, indeed, may not have been submitted to the state courts.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 F.2d 267, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-edward-flemings-v-lawrence-e-wilson-warden-california-state-ca9-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack