Leander Bledsoe v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden

Ninth Circuit

Leander Bledsoe v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden

432 F.2d 923, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7433

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 8, 1970

Docket25090_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 432 F.2d 923 (Leander Bledsoe v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden) 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

Leander Bledsoe v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden, 432 F.2d 923, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7433 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus brought by a state prisoner convicted of murder (Cf. People v. Bledsoe, 252 Cal.App.2d 727, 60 Cal.Rptr. 703 (1964)).

Each of the four grounds urged on appeal were carefully considered and ruled upon by the Honorable E. Avery Crary, United States District Court Judge (C.T. 80-89), adversely to appellant. Appellant’s alleged incriminating statements, if incriminating, and if violative of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964), were harmless error in view of the nature and extent of the evidence of defendant's guilt presented before the jury. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).

We refer to and incorporate Judge Crary’s Memorandum Opinion and Order denying relief as our own, and Affirm.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus brought by a state prisoner convicted of murder (Cf. People v. Bledsoe, 252 Cal.App.2d 727, 60 Cal.Rptr. 703 (1964)).

Each of the four grounds urged on appeal were carefully considered and ruled upon by the Honorable E. Avery Crary, United States District Court Judge (C.T. 80-89), adversely to appellant. Appellant’s alleged incriminating statements, if incriminating, and if violative of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964), were harmless error in view of the nature and extent of the evidence of defendant's guilt presented before the jury. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).

We refer to and incorporate Judge Crary’s Memorandum Opinion and Order denying relief as our own, and Affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 F.2d 923, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leander-bledsoe-v-louis-s-nelson-warden-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack