John Weldon Forbes v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

John Weldon Forbes v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections

559 F.2d 967, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11453

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 21, 1977

Docket77-1161

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 559 F.2d 967 (John Weldon Forbes v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections) 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 Weldon Forbes v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 559 F.2d 967, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11453 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court dismissing the habeas corpus petition of a Texas state prisoner. We affirm.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of being an accomplice to murder with malice and was sentenced by the jury to 3,000 years imprisonment. Forbes v. State, Tex. Cr.App.1974, 513 S.W.2d 72, cert. denied 420 U.S. 910, 95 S.Ct. 830, 42 L.Ed.2d 840.

In his habeas petition filed below, the appellant contends that he was denied his right to confront witnesses against him. First, the state, required to prove the guilt of the principal beyond a reasonable doubt, was allowed to introduce the judgment of conviction and the sentence of the principal. Appellant argues that this deprived him of the right to cross-examine the witnesses who testified against the principal and the jurors who convicted him. The appellant also argues that the introduction of the principal’s sentence, also 3,000 years, prejudiced him. Finally, appellant contends that the state was allowed to take and use at trial the deposition of a material witness in the absence of the witness. 1

The issues raised by appellant concern matters of state procedure which, absent a denial of fundamental fairness, will not be considered when raised in a habeas corpus petition. Blankenship v. Estelle, 5 Cir. 1977, 545 F.2d 510; Gephart v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 319, cert. denied 404 U.S. 966, 92 S.Ct. 342, 30 L.Ed.2d 286. A reading of the trial transcript and record fails to disclose that the alleged errors amounted to a denial of fundamental fairness. The judgment below is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Appellant was represented by counsel at the deposition, did not object to the taking of the testimony by such procedure and the entire proceeding was presided over by the state trial judge.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court dismissing the habeas corpus petition of a Texas state prisoner. We affirm.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of being an accomplice to murder with malice and was sentenced by the jury to 3,000 years imprisonment. Forbes v. State, Tex. Cr.App.1974, 513 S.W.2d 72, cert. denied 420 U.S. 910, 95 S.Ct. 830, 42 L.Ed.2d 840.

In his habeas petition filed below, the appellant contends that he was denied his right to confront witnesses against him. First, the state, required to prove the guilt of the principal beyond a reasonable doubt, was allowed to introduce the judgment of conviction and the sentence of the principal. Appellant argues that this deprived him of the right to cross-examine the witnesses who testified against the principal and the jurors who convicted him. The appellant also argues that the introduction of the principal’s sentence, also 3,000 years, prejudiced him. Finally, appellant contends that the state was allowed to take and use at trial the deposition of a material witness in the absence of the witness. 1

The issues raised by appellant concern matters of state procedure which, absent a denial of fundamental fairness, will not be considered when raised in a habeas corpus petition. Blankenship v. Estelle, 5 Cir. 1977, 545 F.2d 510; Gephart v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 319, cert. denied 404 U.S. 966, 92 S.Ct. 342, 30 L.Ed.2d 286. A reading of the trial transcript and record fails to disclose that the alleged errors amounted to a denial of fundamental fairness. The judgment below is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Appellant was represented by counsel at the deposition, did not object to the taking of the testimony by such procedure and the entire proceeding was presided over by the state trial judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 F.2d 967, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-weldon-forbes-v-w-j-estelle-jr-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack