Mike Murillo v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary

Tenth Circuit

Mike Murillo v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary

360 F.2d 29, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6617

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedApril 5, 1966

Docket8548_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 360 F.2d 29 (Mike Murillo v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mike Murillo v. Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, 360 F.2d 29, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6617 (10th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVID T. LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court for the District of New Mexico denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is a state prisoner and was granted an evidentiary hearing at which he testified as follows: That for six days after his arrest he was interrogated from time to time by officials but gave no statement; that during such six-day period he was not allowed to retain or consult with an attorney; that thereafter he retained counsel, consulted with counsel, and upon advice of counsel entered a plea of guilty to the offense for which he is now serving.

Petitioner correctly contends that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel during the first six days after his arrest. Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. However, the denial of a naked constitutional right does not invalidate all subsequent proceedings nor necessarily prevent an accused from acting voluntarily in such proceedings. See Thompson v. Cox, 10 Cir., 352 F.2d 488. There is nothing in this record to show error in the trial court’s finding that petitioner’s plea of guilty was voluntarily entered. Counsel’s argument that the service of counsel six days earlier would have been a valuable investigative aid is subjective rationalization and doesn’t prove a fact.

Affirmed.

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

DAVID T. LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court for the District of New Mexico denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is a state prisoner and was granted an evidentiary hearing at which he testified as follows: That for six days after his arrest he was interrogated from time to time by officials but gave no statement; that during such six-day period he was not allowed to retain or consult with an attorney; that thereafter he retained counsel, consulted with counsel, and upon advice of counsel entered a plea of guilty to the offense for which he is now serving.

Petitioner correctly contends that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel during the first six days after his arrest. Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. However, the denial of a naked constitutional right does not invalidate all subsequent proceedings nor necessarily prevent an accused from acting voluntarily in such proceedings. See Thompson v. Cox, 10 Cir., 352 F.2d 488. There is nothing in this record to show error in the trial court’s finding that petitioner’s plea of guilty was voluntarily entered. Counsel’s argument that the service of counsel six days earlier would have been a valuable investigative aid is subjective rationalization and doesn’t prove a fact.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 F.2d 29, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mike-murillo-v-harold-a-cox-warden-new-mexico-state-penitentiary-ca10-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack