Nathaniel Nixon v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Nathaniel Nixon v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

456 F.2d 1065, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10852

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 9, 1972

Docket71-3474

StatusPublished

This text of 456 F.2d 1065 (Nathaniel Nixon 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

Nathaniel Nixon v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 456 F.2d 1065, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10852 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Upon conviction of a second assault to commit murder, Nathaniel Nixon was sentenced to prison for twenty-five years. The sole ground for the writ of habeas corpus was that in the state court Nixon had not received effective assistance from his court-appointed counsel. Upon a complete evidentiary hearing, in which Nixon was represented by counsel and testified, the District Court denied relief. The District Judge found that Nixon was not a credible witness and “is not worthy of belief”, that he had received adequate representation, and that his contentions to the contrary were frivolous.

Upon a review of the record and briefs we perceive no basis for overturning these findings. They are far from clearly erroneous.

The judgment of the District Court denying the writ is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Upon conviction of a second assault to commit murder, Nathaniel Nixon was sentenced to prison for twenty-five years. The sole ground for the writ of habeas corpus was that in the state court Nixon had not received effective assistance from his court-appointed counsel. Upon a complete evidentiary hearing, in which Nixon was represented by counsel and testified, the District Court denied relief. The District Judge found that Nixon was not a credible witness and “is not worthy of belief”, that he had received adequate representation, and that his contentions to the contrary were frivolous.

Upon a review of the record and briefs we perceive no basis for overturning these findings. They are far from clearly erroneous.

The judgment of the District Court denying the writ is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 1065, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathaniel-nixon-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1972.