Nathaniel Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

Fifth Circuit

Nathaniel Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

414 F.2d 806, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11451

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 17, 1969

Docket27502

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 414 F.2d 806 (Nathaniel Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida) 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 Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, 414 F.2d 806, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11451 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court's local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Appellant, a Florida convict, filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court below alleging (1) insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, (2) a prejudicially defective charge to the jury, and (3) error in the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial.

The court below denied relief, properly holding that the insufficiency of the evidence to support a state conviction raises no constitutional question. Doughty v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 128.

The district court also found that the attack on the charge to the jury was without merit. It determined that the portion of the charge attacked by appellant was not so prejudicial as to violate constitutional standards when read in context as the law requires. January v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 31; Beck v. United States, 5 Cir. 1963, 317 F.2d 865, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 972, 84 S.Ct. 480, 11 L.Ed.2d 419. We agree. A jury charge is not to be read in segments, but in its totality. As so read the charge before us conforms to constitutional requirements.

Finally, with respect to the trial court’s failure to grant a motion for a new trial, we find, as did the district court, that the denial of such motion did not amount to a constitutional deprivation.

The judgment of the court below is Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court's local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Appellant, a Florida convict, filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court below alleging (1) insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, (2) a prejudicially defective charge to the jury, and (3) error in the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial.

The court below denied relief, properly holding that the insufficiency of the evidence to support a state conviction raises no constitutional question. Doughty v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 128.

The district court also found that the attack on the charge to the jury was without merit. It determined that the portion of the charge attacked by appellant was not so prejudicial as to violate constitutional standards when read in context as the law requires. January v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 31; Beck v. United States, 5 Cir. 1963, 317 F.2d 865, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 972, 84 S.Ct. 480, 11 L.Ed.2d 419. We agree. A jury charge is not to be read in segments, but in its totality. As so read the charge before us conforms to constitutional requirements.

Finally, with respect to the trial court’s failure to grant a motion for a new trial, we find, as did the district court, that the denial of such motion did not amount to a constitutional deprivation.

The judgment of the court below is Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 F.2d 806, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathaniel-williams-v-louie-l-wainwright-director-division-of-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack