Marvin Earl Harris v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Florida Division of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Marvin Earl Harris v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Florida Division of Corrections

470 F.2d 190, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6688

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 15, 1972

Docket72-2668

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 470 F.2d 190 (Marvin Earl Harris v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Florida Division 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

Marvin Earl Harris v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Florida Division of Corrections, 470 F.2d 190, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6688 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Earl Harris, who appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, was convicted of a crime against nature upon trial by jury and was sentenced to a term of twenty years’ imprisonment.

In this petition for federal habeas relief, the appellant alleged: (1) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (2) that he was denied a speedy trial; (3) that there was unnecessary delay between his arrest and the holding of a preliminary hearing; (4) that at his trial he was illegally interrogated concerning his prior convictions; (5) that he was subjected to an unconstitutional line-up; and (6) that the trial court improperly failed to include a lesser offense in its charge to the jury.

Harris pled guilty to kidnapping but not guilty to committing an act of sodomy upon the person kidnapped. During his sodomy trial, Harris took the stand and testified that his accuser had entered his automobile voluntarily. On cross-examination the prosecution confronted Harris with his guilty plea conviction for kidnapping as to this same incident. Assuming arguendo that this procedure was error at all, it was not error of constitutional dimension and was not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.

The district court dismissed Harris’ remaining claims on the ground that they had already been considered in a prior federal habeas corpus proceeding. The record indicates, however, that these allegations were raised in the habeas corpus action in which Harris collaterally attacked his kidnapping conviction. Therefore, the prior habeas ruling does not bar him from raising similar grounds in seeking relief from a sentence imposed after the separate trial and jury verdict on the crime against nature charge. These contentions must be considered on their merits. We intimate no view whatever as to the outcome of such consideration.

Vacated and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Earl Harris, who appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, was convicted of a crime against nature upon trial by jury and was sentenced to a term of twenty years’ imprisonment.

In this petition for federal habeas relief, the appellant alleged: (1) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (2) that he was denied a speedy trial; (3) that there was unnecessary delay between his arrest and the holding of a preliminary hearing; (4) that at his trial he was illegally interrogated concerning his prior convictions; (5) that he was subjected to an unconstitutional line-up; and (6) that the trial court improperly failed to include a lesser offense in its charge to the jury.

Harris pled guilty to kidnapping but not guilty to committing an act of sodomy upon the person kidnapped. During his sodomy trial, Harris took the stand and testified that his accuser had entered his automobile voluntarily. On cross-examination the prosecution confronted Harris with his guilty plea conviction for kidnapping as to this same incident. Assuming arguendo that this procedure was error at all, it was not error of constitutional dimension and was not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.

The district court dismissed Harris’ remaining claims on the ground that they had already been considered in a prior federal habeas corpus proceeding. The record indicates, however, that these allegations were raised in the habeas corpus action in which Harris collaterally attacked his kidnapping conviction. Therefore, the prior habeas ruling does not bar him from raising similar grounds in seeking relief from a sentence imposed after the separate trial and jury verdict on the crime against nature charge. These contentions must be considered on their merits. We intimate no view whatever as to the outcome of such consideration.

Vacated and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 F.2d 190, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marvin-earl-harris-v-louie-l-wainwright-director-florida-division-of-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack