Joseph Taylor v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Joseph Taylor v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

392 F.2d 566, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7255

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 1968

Docket24906

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 392 F.2d 566 (Joseph Taylor v. Dr. George J. Beto, 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

Joseph Taylor v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 392 F.2d 566, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7255 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant is presently serving a life sentence in the Texas state penitentiary for the offense of murder with malice to which he pleaded guilty on June 25,1964.

Appellant alleges in his habeas petition that his plea of guilty was the result of an allegedly coerced confession and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. While there may be merit to these contentions, it is apparent on the face of appellant’s petition that he has failed to exhaust available state remedies. Before he can receive a federal determination on the merits of his petition, he is required by Title 28, U.S.C., Section 2254, to pursue Texas post-conviction remedies. An effective remedy is provided by Article 11.07 of the Vernon’s Ann.Texas Code of Criminal Procedure of 1965, as amended, effective August 28, 1967. Taylor may and should present his contentions at an evidentiary hearing in the state district court in which he was convicted. State of Texas v. Payton, 5 Cir. 1968, 890 F.2d 261; Sheehan v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 387 F.2d 263; Carroll v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 379 F.2d 329; Ex Parte Young, Tex.Cr.App.1967, 418 S.W.2d 824.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant is presently serving a life sentence in the Texas state penitentiary for the offense of murder with malice to which he pleaded guilty on June 25,1964.

Appellant alleges in his habeas petition that his plea of guilty was the result of an allegedly coerced confession and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. While there may be merit to these contentions, it is apparent on the face of appellant’s petition that he has failed to exhaust available state remedies. Before he can receive a federal determination on the merits of his petition, he is required by Title 28, U.S.C., Section 2254, to pursue Texas post-conviction remedies. An effective remedy is provided by Article 11.07 of the Vernon’s Ann.Texas Code of Criminal Procedure of 1965, as amended, effective August 28, 1967. Taylor may and should present his contentions at an evidentiary hearing in the state district court in which he was convicted. State of Texas v. Payton, 5 Cir. 1968, 890 F.2d 261; Sheehan v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 387 F.2d 263; Carroll v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 379 F.2d 329; Ex Parte Young, Tex.Cr.App.1967, 418 S.W.2d 824.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 F.2d 566, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-taylor-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack