Paul Woods v. The State of Texas

Fifth Circuit

Paul Woods v. The State of Texas

404 F.2d 332

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 18, 1968

Docket26021_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 404 F.2d 332 (Paul Woods v. The State of Texas) 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

Paul Woods v. The State of Texas, 404 F.2d 332 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Paul Woods, a prisoner of the State of Texas, appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.

The appellant is serving a sentence of ninety-nine years for the offense of murder with malice. The judgment was affirmed upon direct appeal, Woods v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 525, 215 S.W.2d 334 (1948), and the appellant has otherwise exhausted his state postconviction remedies.

The District Court appointed counsel for the appellant and held an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his contentions, at which the appellant and the two investigating officers testified. Habeas relief was denied with comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The District Court held that appellant’s oral inculpatory statement, given when he was arrested, was admissible in evidence; that the appellant was afforded the effective assistance of competent counsel at every material step of the proceedings until he expressly waived the assistance of counsel during his trial; and that there was no showing of denial of any federally-protected right in the state proceedings. We have examined the record, including the trial transcript, and are convinced that the District Court’s judgment is correct. The District Court found there to be no merit in the specific contention that the referral of petitioner’s case directly to a grand jury without a preliminary examining trial was not constitutionally permissible. We agree with that conclusion. Scarbrough v. Dutton, 393 F.2d 6 (5th Cir. 1968); Dillard v. Bomar, 342 F.2d 789 (6th Cir. 1965), and cases there cited; Burdick v. Allgood, 270 F.Supp. 614 (E.D.La.1967); Collins v. Beto, 245 F.Supp. 639 (S.D.Tex.1965).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Paul Woods, a prisoner of the State of Texas, appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.

The appellant is serving a sentence of ninety-nine years for the offense of murder with malice. The judgment was affirmed upon direct appeal, Woods v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 525, 215 S.W.2d 334 (1948), and the appellant has otherwise exhausted his state postconviction remedies.

The District Court appointed counsel for the appellant and held an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his contentions, at which the appellant and the two investigating officers testified. Habeas relief was denied with comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The District Court held that appellant’s oral inculpatory statement, given when he was arrested, was admissible in evidence; that the appellant was afforded the effective assistance of competent counsel at every material step of the proceedings until he expressly waived the assistance of counsel during his trial; and that there was no showing of denial of any federally-protected right in the state proceedings. We have examined the record, including the trial transcript, and are convinced that the District Court’s judgment is correct. The District Court found there to be no merit in the specific contention that the referral of petitioner’s case directly to a grand jury without a preliminary examining trial was not constitutionally permissible. We agree with that conclusion. Scarbrough v. Dutton, 393 F.2d 6 (5th Cir. 1968); Dillard v. Bomar, 342 F.2d 789 (6th Cir. 1965), and cases there cited; Burdick v. Allgood, 270 F.Supp. 614 (E.D.La.1967); Collins v. Beto, 245 F.Supp. 639 (S.D.Tex.1965).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 F.2d 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-woods-v-the-state-of-texas-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack