Malvin Hollifield v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Malvin Hollifield v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

372 F.2d 478

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 1967

Docket24059_1

StatusPublished

This text of 372 F.2d 478 (Malvin Hollifield 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

Malvin Hollifield v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 372 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s habeas corpus petition attacks his life sentence, imposed following his conviction by a jury on a charge of first degree murder. The court below denied his petition after a full hearing. The appellant first alleges that his confession was coerced. Since the confession was not introduced at trial, the appellant’s constitutional rights were not violated. See Lynumn v. State of Illinois, 1963, 372 U.S. 528, 536, 83 S.Ct. 917, 9 L.Ed.2d 922. Hollifield next alleges that his trial was fatally infected by adverse pretrial publicity. There is no evidence in the record to support this contention. 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.

The appellant’s habeas corpus petition attacks his life sentence, imposed following his conviction by a jury on a charge of first degree murder. The court below denied his petition after a full hearing. The appellant first alleges that his confession was coerced. Since the confession was not introduced at trial, the appellant’s constitutional rights were not violated. See Lynumn v. State of Illinois, 1963, 372 U.S. 528, 536, 83 S.Ct. 917, 9 L.Ed.2d 922. Hollifield next alleges that his trial was fatally infected by adverse pretrial publicity. There is no evidence in the record to support this contention. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 F.2d 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malvin-hollifield-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack