James L. Whitney v. Walter E. Craven

Ninth Circuit

James L. Whitney v. Walter E. Craven

460 F.2d 1267

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 1972

Docket71-3007

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 460 F.2d 1267 (James L. Whitney v. Walter E. Craven) 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 L. Whitney v. Walter E. Craven, 460 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Whitney, a California prisoner, convicted of burglary in 1965, appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appeal because he did not know that he had a right to appeal or that as an indigent he had a right to have appointed counsel on appeal. See Gairson v. Cupp, 9 Cir., 1969, 415 F.2d 352. The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which Whitney and counsel who represented him at his trial testified. There is ample evidence in the record that Whitney knew that he had a right to appeal. His trial counsel did not expressly testify that he did or did not tell Whitney that he would be entitled to appointed counsel; he was not asked. The court was not required to believe Whitney; indeed, from Whitney’s testimony the court could infer that he knew a great deal more than he said he did. The burden of proof was on Whitney, Schlette v. California, 9 Cir., 1960, 284 F.2d 827, and he did not sustain it, as the court found.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Whitney, a California prisoner, convicted of burglary in 1965, appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appeal because he did not know that he had a right to appeal or that as an indigent he had a right to have appointed counsel on appeal. See Gairson v. Cupp, 9 Cir., 1969, 415 F.2d 352. The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which Whitney and counsel who represented him at his trial testified. There is ample evidence in the record that Whitney knew that he had a right to appeal. His trial counsel did not expressly testify that he did or did not tell Whitney that he would be entitled to appointed counsel; he was not asked. The court was not required to believe Whitney; indeed, from Whitney’s testimony the court could infer that he knew a great deal more than he said he did. The burden of proof was on Whitney, Schlette v. California, 9 Cir., 1960, 284 F.2d 827, and he did not sustain it, as the court found.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 F.2d 1267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-l-whitney-v-walter-e-craven-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack