Merlo v. Beto

Fifth Circuit

Merlo v. Beto

441 F.2d 729, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10439

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1971

DocketNo. 31032

StatusPublished

This text of 441 F.2d 729 (Merlo v. Beto) 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

Merlo v. Beto, 441 F.2d 729, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10439 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Merlo appeals from the District Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that his burglary conviction is invalid because his court-appointed counsel refused his request to move for a sanity hearing. We affirm.

Having pled guilty to a charge of burglary, Merlo was convicted and sentenced in the 147th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. Although Merlo filed no direct appeal, he has exhausted available post-conviction remedies under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 11.07. See Carroll v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 379 F.2d 329; Henderson v. Beto, N.D. Tex.1970, 309 F.Supp. 244, 246-247. After a full evidentiary hearing, the state trial judge entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law denying relief. The court held that Merlo was legally sane when he pled guilty, that he did not ask his counsel to move for a sanity hearing, that he received effective assistance from competent counsel, and that he knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty to the offense charged. Without written opinion, The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

In considering Merlo’s federal habeas corpus petition, the District Court adopted the state trial court’s findings of fact. The District Judge held that on advice of competent counsel, Merlo consciously waived any possible insanity defense. The record fully supports the District Court’s determination. See Daugherty v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 388 F.2d 810, 812-814, cert. denied, 1968, 393 U.S. 986, 89 S.Ct. 461, 21 L.Ed.2d 447; Clark v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1966, 359 F.2d 554, 557, cert. denied, 1967, 386 U.S. 927, 87 S.Ct. 875, 17 L.Ed.2d 799.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Merlo appeals from the District Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that his burglary conviction is invalid because his court-appointed counsel refused his request to move for a sanity hearing. We affirm.

Having pled guilty to a charge of burglary, Merlo was convicted and sentenced in the 147th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. Although Merlo filed no direct appeal, he has exhausted available post-conviction remedies under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 11.07. See Carroll v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 379 F.2d 329; Henderson v. Beto, N.D. Tex.1970, 309 F.Supp. 244, 246-247. After a full evidentiary hearing, the state trial judge entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law denying relief. The court held that Merlo was legally sane when he pled guilty, that he did not ask his counsel to move for a sanity hearing, that he received effective assistance from competent counsel, and that he knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty to the offense charged. Without written opinion, The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

In considering Merlo’s federal habeas corpus petition, the District Court adopted the state trial court’s findings of fact. The District Judge held that on advice of competent counsel, Merlo consciously waived any possible insanity defense. The record fully supports the District Court’s determination. See Daugherty v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1967, 388 F.2d 810, 812-814, cert. denied, 1968, 393 U.S. 986, 89 S.Ct. 461, 21 L.Ed.2d 447; Clark v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1966, 359 F.2d 554, 557, cert. denied, 1967, 386 U.S. 927, 87 S.Ct. 875, 17 L.Ed.2d 799.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F.2d 729, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merlo-v-beto-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack