Paul v. Waters, Warden

Tenth Circuit

Paul v. Waters, Warden

204 F.2d 510, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2462

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 23, 1953

Docket4623

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 F.2d 510 (Paul v. Waters, Warden) 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

Paul v. Waters, Warden, 204 F.2d 510, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2462 (10th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Paul, the petitioner, was charged by an information filed in the District Court of Washington County, Oklahoma, with the offense of murder. On July 28, 1926, he appeared in open court and entered a plea of guilty to the information and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.

As grounds for the writ he set up that he was induced to enter the plea of guilty through threats, intimidation, and coercion of the County Sheriff and state officials. An application for a writ of habeas corpus predicated on substantially the same grounds was denied by the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. See Ex parte Paul, Okl.Cr.App., 227 P.2d 422. A petition for certiorari to review that decision was denied by the Supreme Court. Paul v. Burford, Warden, 341 U.S. 922, 71 S.Ct. 738, 95 L.Ed. 1355.

After a full hearing the court below found that the petitioner had failed to establish the facts alleged in his application as grounds for the writ. The question presented is peculiarly one of fact. The trial court had the opportunity to observe the *511 witnesses while on the stand and their demeanor while testifying and to judge their credibility. We cannot say that the finding of the trial court was clearly erroneous. The order discharging the writ is, therefore, affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Paul, the petitioner, was charged by an information filed in the District Court of Washington County, Oklahoma, with the offense of murder. On July 28, 1926, he appeared in open court and entered a plea of guilty to the information and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.

As grounds for the writ he set up that he was induced to enter the plea of guilty through threats, intimidation, and coercion of the County Sheriff and state officials. An application for a writ of habeas corpus predicated on substantially the same grounds was denied by the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. See Ex parte Paul, Okl.Cr.App., 227 P.2d 422. A petition for certiorari to review that decision was denied by the Supreme Court. Paul v. Burford, Warden, 341 U.S. 922, 71 S.Ct. 738, 95 L.Ed. 1355.

After a full hearing the court below found that the petitioner had failed to establish the facts alleged in his application as grounds for the writ. The question presented is peculiarly one of fact. The trial court had the opportunity to observe the *511 witnesses while on the stand and their demeanor while testifying and to judge their credibility. We cannot say that the finding of the trial court was clearly erroneous. The order discharging the writ is, therefore, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 F.2d 510, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-v-waters-warden-ca10-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack