Mike L. Martinez v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

398 F.2d 542, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6092
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 16, 1968
Docket25205_1
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 398 F.2d 542 (Mike L. Martinez 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
Mike L. Martinez v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 398 F.2d 542, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6092 (5th Cir. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. The facts and circumstances herein are fully reported in Martinez v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 443, 350 S.W.2d 929 (1961) and Ex parte Martinez, 386 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.Cr.App. 1964). Hence, they are not repeated here.

The Judgment of the District Court was entered prior to the decision of this Court in Huitín v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 216 [May 30, 1968]. While there are distinctions between this case and Huitín, the rationale there adopted requires us to hold here that Texas’ treatment of Martinez was a denial of that fundamental fairness essential to due process of law. The State divided appellant’s conduct into two separate defenses. He was tried for assault and committed as a juvenile, soon found rehabilitated, and released. When he reached the age of seventeen he was indicted for murder arising out of the same factual circumstances, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment without regard to what had gone before. The totality of the treatment so accorded Martinez violates the due process rights guaranteed him by the Fourteenth Amendment. Palko v. State of Connecticut, 1937, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288; Rochin v. People of California, 1952, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183.

The Judgment of the District Court will, therefore, be reversed and remanded for entry of an order releasing the appellant.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

White v. State
576 S.W.2d 843 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Ex Parte Evans
530 S.W.2d 589 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1975)
Mason v. Henderson
337 F. Supp. 35 (E.D. Louisiana, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
398 F.2d 542, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mike-l-martinez-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1968.