Michael Harvey Vail v. Raymond K. Procunier, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent

Fifth Circuit

Michael Harvey Vail v. Raymond K. Procunier, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent

747 F.2d 277, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 16826

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 1984

Docket84-2467

StatusPublished

Cited by33 cases

This text of 747 F.2d 277 (Michael Harvey Vail v. Raymond K. Procunier, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent) 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

Michael Harvey Vail v. Raymond K. Procunier, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent, 747 F.2d 277, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 16826 (5th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Treating appellant’s notice of appeal as an application for a certificate of probable cause, Fed.R.App.P. 22(b), the application is DENIED. Appellant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right. Fabian v. Reed, 714 F.2d 39 (5th Cir.1983).

Infirmities in state habeas corpus proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief. See Williams v. State of Missouri, 640 F.2d 140 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 990, 101 S.Ct. 2328, 68 L.Ed.2d 849 (1981). Because this allegation is insufficient, as a matter of law, the district court improvidently dismissed the cause for failure to exhaust state remedies *278 thereon. See Colvin v. Estelle, 506 F.2d 747 (5th Cir.1975).

Vail contends that a prior conviction used for enhancement of his current sentence is invalid for several reasons. This assertion is without merit; his plea of “true” to the enhancement count, while represented by counsel, constituted a waiver of any complaint concerning the prior conviction. Scott v. Maggio, 695 F.2d 916 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3544, 77 L.Ed.2d 1393 (1983); Kemph v. Estelle, 621 F.2d 162 (5th Cir.1980), Nor is Vail entitled to relief on his conclusional allegation that he was denied effective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his current conviction. The statement of facts amply demonstrates that his “true” plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. See Dugar v. Maggio, 710 F.2d 836 (5th Cir.1983), and authorities cited therein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

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

ORDER

Treating appellant’s notice of appeal as an application for a certificate of probable cause, Fed.R.App.P. 22(b), the application is DENIED. Appellant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right. Fabian v. Reed, 714 F.2d 39 (5th Cir.1983).

Infirmities in state habeas corpus proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief. See Williams v. State of Missouri, 640 F.2d 140 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 990, 101 S.Ct. 2328, 68 L.Ed.2d 849 (1981). Because this allegation is insufficient, as a matter of law, the district court improvidently dismissed the cause for failure to exhaust state remedies *278 thereon. See Colvin v. Estelle, 506 F.2d 747 (5th Cir.1975).

Vail contends that a prior conviction used for enhancement of his current sentence is invalid for several reasons. This assertion is without merit; his plea of “true” to the enhancement count, while represented by counsel, constituted a waiver of any complaint concerning the prior conviction. Scott v. Maggio, 695 F.2d 916 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3544, 77 L.Ed.2d 1393 (1983); Kemph v. Estelle, 621 F.2d 162 (5th Cir.1980), Nor is Vail entitled to relief on his conclusional allegation that he was denied effective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his current conviction. The statement of facts amply demonstrates that his “true” plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. See Dugar v. Maggio, 710 F.2d 836 (5th Cir.1983), and authorities cited therein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

747 F.2d 277, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 16826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-harvey-vail-v-raymond-k-procunier-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack