Richard Silva v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Richard Silva v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

387 F.2d 369, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4028

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 26, 1967

Docket24806_1

StatusPublished

This text of 387 F.2d 369 (Richard Silva 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

Richard Silva v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 387 F.2d 369, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4028 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from denial of a writ of habeas corpus 1 to appellant who is now serving concurrent sentences for theft and for possession of narcotics in the Texas State Penitentiary.

Appellant contends that his pleas of guilty to the above offenses were not freely and voluntarily entered because he was compelled to plead guilty by his retained counsel, now deceased. Appellant also complains that he was denied trial by jury and confrontation of witnesses, and that the indictments were invalid in several respects.

The District Court held an evidentiary hearing with appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, present and testifying. The Court rendered detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are. abundantly supported by credible evidence and applicable legal authorities. 2

We conclude that the appellant’s pleas of guilty were freely and voluntarily entered upon advice of counsel after he was fully advised of his constitutional rights by the trial court. See Busby v. Holman, 5 Cir. 1966, 356 F.2d 75; Cooper v. Holman, 5 Cir. 1966, 356 F.2d 82. Therefore, appellant had no federally protected right to a jury trial. Moreover, the prosecuting attorney testified, and the court below found, that the appellant expressly waived his right to a jury. Certified copies of the indict- *370 merits which were entered in evidence appear to be regular and valid in all essential particulars.

The judgment of the District Court is correct, and it is hereby

Affirmed.

1

. 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

2

. See Silva v. Beto, Civil Action No. 66-H-424 (S.D.Tex., Houston Division).

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from denial of a writ of habeas corpus 1 to appellant who is now serving concurrent sentences for theft and for possession of narcotics in the Texas State Penitentiary.

Appellant contends that his pleas of guilty to the above offenses were not freely and voluntarily entered because he was compelled to plead guilty by his retained counsel, now deceased. Appellant also complains that he was denied trial by jury and confrontation of witnesses, and that the indictments were invalid in several respects.

The District Court held an evidentiary hearing with appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, present and testifying. The Court rendered detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are. abundantly supported by credible evidence and applicable legal authorities. 2

We conclude that the appellant’s pleas of guilty were freely and voluntarily entered upon advice of counsel after he was fully advised of his constitutional rights by the trial court. See Busby v. Holman, 5 Cir. 1966, 356 F.2d 75; Cooper v. Holman, 5 Cir. 1966, 356 F.2d 82. Therefore, appellant had no federally protected right to a jury trial. Moreover, the prosecuting attorney testified, and the court below found, that the appellant expressly waived his right to a jury. Certified copies of the indict- *370 merits which were entered in evidence appear to be regular and valid in all essential particulars.

The judgment of the District Court is correct, and it is hereby

Affirmed.

1

. 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

2

. See Silva v. Beto, Civil Action No. 66-H-424 (S.D.Tex., Houston Division).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 F.2d 369, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-silva-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack