John Henry Lee, Jr., 028436 v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Fla.

Fifth Circuit

John Henry Lee, Jr., 028436 v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Fla.

488 F.2d 140, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6636

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 1973

Docket73-2280

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 488 F.2d 140 (John Henry Lee, Jr., 028436 v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Fla.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Henry Lee, Jr., 028436 v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Fla., 488 F.2d 140, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6636 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Lee, a state prisoner, appeals from an order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that evidence introduced at his trial was seized incident to an illegal arrest and that he was interrogated without prior Miranda warnings.

Upon a complete review of the record we find that appellant’s contentions are without merit. His initial detention was proper because it was based upon specific facts known to the police officer. Between 4:00 and 5:00 o’clock in the morning the officer was searching a residential neighborhood for a black rape suspect driving a Ford. Appellant was a black male driving a Ford in the neighborhood at that time. Probable cause for an arrest, of course, was not needed to momentarily detain the appellant in the course of the officer’s *141 investigation. 1 Subsequently obtained information made an arrest justifiable under the probable cause standard.

We find the Miranda issue is primarily factual. The material facts were fully developed at a state court hearing on a motion to suppress, and the state’s factual determination was fairly supported by the record. There is no allegation of newly discovered evidence. The district court properly made an independent examination of the file and state court record as well as considering a magistrate’s report and recommendation.

Upon the authority of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963), this petition was properly dismissed.

Affirmed.

1

. See, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and United States v. Moreno, 475 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1973).

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Lee, a state prisoner, appeals from an order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that evidence introduced at his trial was seized incident to an illegal arrest and that he was interrogated without prior Miranda warnings.

Upon a complete review of the record we find that appellant’s contentions are without merit. His initial detention was proper because it was based upon specific facts known to the police officer. Between 4:00 and 5:00 o’clock in the morning the officer was searching a residential neighborhood for a black rape suspect driving a Ford. Appellant was a black male driving a Ford in the neighborhood at that time. Probable cause for an arrest, of course, was not needed to momentarily detain the appellant in the course of the officer’s *141 investigation. 1 Subsequently obtained information made an arrest justifiable under the probable cause standard.

We find the Miranda issue is primarily factual. The material facts were fully developed at a state court hearing on a motion to suppress, and the state’s factual determination was fairly supported by the record. There is no allegation of newly discovered evidence. The district court properly made an independent examination of the file and state court record as well as considering a magistrate’s report and recommendation.

Upon the authority of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963), this petition was properly dismissed.

Affirmed.

1

. See, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and United States v. Moreno, 475 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1973).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 F.2d 140, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-henry-lee-jr-028436-v-louie-l-wainwright-director-division-of-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack