Julio Gonzales v. Dr. George Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Julio Gonzales v. Dr. George Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

460 F.2d 314, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9474

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 18, 1972

Docket72-1126

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 460 F.2d 314 (Julio Gonzales v. Dr. George 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

Julio Gonzales v. Dr. George Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 460 F.2d 314, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9474 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Texas State prisoner, incarcerated for theft, appeals from a denial by the District Court of habeas relief. He contends that the warrantless search of an impounded automobile (in which he had been riding as a passenger when arrested) was illegal, and that a lineup procedure at which he was identified without benefit of counsel was so fundamentally prejudicial as to amount to a deprivation of due process.

We have examined the record and the District Court’s findings and conclusions, and we are convinced that relief was properly denied.

The search of the vehicle was based on probable cause, independent of any incident to arrest, and under circumstances approved in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). The lineup, having occurred prior to United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967) and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967), must be judged by the totality of surrounding circumstances to determine whether it was “so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification” as to constitute lack of due process. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1972, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967); Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969). We have applied these standards and find no circumstances whatsoever which were conducive to the denial of any of appellant’s constitutional rights. We find no error by the District Court.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Texas State prisoner, incarcerated for theft, appeals from a denial by the District Court of habeas relief. He contends that the warrantless search of an impounded automobile (in which he had been riding as a passenger when arrested) was illegal, and that a lineup procedure at which he was identified without benefit of counsel was so fundamentally prejudicial as to amount to a deprivation of due process.

We have examined the record and the District Court’s findings and conclusions, and we are convinced that relief was properly denied.

The search of the vehicle was based on probable cause, independent of any incident to arrest, and under circumstances approved in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). The lineup, having occurred prior to United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967) and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967), must be judged by the totality of surrounding circumstances to determine whether it was “so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification” as to constitute lack of due process. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1972, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967); Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969). We have applied these standards and find no circumstances whatsoever which were conducive to the denial of any of appellant’s constitutional rights. We find no error by the District Court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 F.2d 314, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/julio-gonzales-v-dr-george-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack