Maynard Fred Edwards v. G. P. Lloyd and E. J. Oberhauser

Ninth Circuit

Maynard Fred Edwards v. G. P. Lloyd and E. J. Oberhauser

426 F.2d 820, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9122

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 21, 1970

Docket24697_1

StatusPublished

This text of 426 F.2d 820 (Maynard Fred Edwards v. G. P. Lloyd and E. J. Oberhauser) 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

Maynard Fred Edwards v. G. P. Lloyd and E. J. Oberhauser, 426 F.2d 820, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9122 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial by the district court of appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He was convicted, in a non-jury trial, of the crime of possession of heroin for sale under the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, § 11500.5. After a study of the state court record, the district judge denied the petition without a hearing.

The record before the district court, and now before us, meets all of the requirements of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312-318, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963) and 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 Beyond question, the trial judge accurately interpreted his judicial function and correctly decided: (1) that the merits of the factual dispute were resolved in the state court hearing; (2) that the factual determination by the *821 state court was fairly supported by the record as a whole; and (3) that the fact finding procedure employed by the state court was adequate to afford a full and complete hearing. Moreover, we hold that the district judge correctly applied the federal law to the state court’s findings on the facts.

We find it unnecessary to speak on the effect, if any, of the presumption created by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

1

. As amended November 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1105.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial by the district court of appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He was convicted, in a non-jury trial, of the crime of possession of heroin for sale under the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, § 11500.5. After a study of the state court record, the district judge denied the petition without a hearing.

The record before the district court, and now before us, meets all of the requirements of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312-318, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963) and 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 Beyond question, the trial judge accurately interpreted his judicial function and correctly decided: (1) that the merits of the factual dispute were resolved in the state court hearing; (2) that the factual determination by the *821 state court was fairly supported by the record as a whole; and (3) that the fact finding procedure employed by the state court was adequate to afford a full and complete hearing. Moreover, we hold that the district judge correctly applied the federal law to the state court’s findings on the facts.

We find it unnecessary to speak on the effect, if any, of the presumption created by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

1

. As amended November 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1105.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 F.2d 820, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maynard-fred-edwards-v-g-p-lloyd-and-e-j-oberhauser-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack