Otis E. Turman v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Otis E. Turman v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

404 F.2d 872, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4463

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 1968

Docket25591

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 404 F.2d 872 (Otis E. Turman 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

Otis E. Turman v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 404 F.2d 872, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4463 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appellant was convicted after a jury trial in the Criminal District Court for Dallas County, Texas, of the felony of rape and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of from five to fifty years. After exhaustion of those state post conviction remedies then available he sought federal habeas corpus.

The District Court appointed counsel for the petitioner and accorded an evi-dentiary hearing, at which Turman was present and testified. The Court then filed a written opinion in which it found that no relief was justified by either the law or the facts. We are of the view that the record supports these conclusions in all particulars save one. Specifically, we affirm the judgment of the Court denying relief on the following grounds asserted by the appellant: (1) his arrest was illegal, as without a warrant or probable cause; (2) he was prejudiced by evidence obtained as the result of an unlawful search of his home; and (3) no attorney was present to advise or counsel him when he allegedly confessed to the crime charged.

The District Court, however, did not deal directly or specifically with the matter of whether appellant was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel. From an examination of the record as a whole we conclude that this issue should have the benefit of further scrutiny in the state courts under post conviction procedures now available in Texas, Article 11.07, Vernon’s Ann.Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended effective August 28, 1967. Without intimating any opinion thereon and reserving the issue for the full fact finding processes of the state court, we point out that this issue revolves around the alleged failure of retained counsel to inform the prisoner of his right to appeal as an indigent after counsel withdrew his representation because funds could not be raised to pay for his services on appeal.

Affirmed on the issues indicated; remanded for further proceedings on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appellant was convicted after a jury trial in the Criminal District Court for Dallas County, Texas, of the felony of rape and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of from five to fifty years. After exhaustion of those state post conviction remedies then available he sought federal habeas corpus.

The District Court appointed counsel for the petitioner and accorded an evi-dentiary hearing, at which Turman was present and testified. The Court then filed a written opinion in which it found that no relief was justified by either the law or the facts. We are of the view that the record supports these conclusions in all particulars save one. Specifically, we affirm the judgment of the Court denying relief on the following grounds asserted by the appellant: (1) his arrest was illegal, as without a warrant or probable cause; (2) he was prejudiced by evidence obtained as the result of an unlawful search of his home; and (3) no attorney was present to advise or counsel him when he allegedly confessed to the crime charged.

The District Court, however, did not deal directly or specifically with the matter of whether appellant was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel. From an examination of the record as a whole we conclude that this issue should have the benefit of further scrutiny in the state courts under post conviction procedures now available in Texas, Article 11.07, Vernon’s Ann.Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended effective August 28, 1967. Without intimating any opinion thereon and reserving the issue for the full fact finding processes of the state court, we point out that this issue revolves around the alleged failure of retained counsel to inform the prisoner of his right to appeal as an indigent after counsel withdrew his representation because funds could not be raised to pay for his services on appeal.

Affirmed on the issues indicated; remanded for further proceedings on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 F.2d 872, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otis-e-turman-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack