Rodell Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, Warden

Fifth Circuit

Rodell Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, Warden

488 F.2d 136, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6464

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 1973

Docket73-3126

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 488 F.2d 136 (Rodell Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, Warden) 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

Rodell Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, Warden, 488 F.2d 136, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6464 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

*137 PER CURIAM:

Jenkins appeals from the denial of federal habeas relief. The trial court held that the sole issue raised below (and the sole issue on this appeal), the sufficiency vel non of the evidence at appellant’s state trial for murder as to his sanity at the time the offense was committed, did not present grounds for federal habeas relief for denial of due process. We agree.

There was competent evidence presented at the trial to substantiate the jury verdict. An issue of the sufficiency of the evidence raised by conflicting testimony supporting a state conviction does not present a due process question. See Colbroth v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1972, 466 F.2d 1193; Young v. Alabama, 5 Cir. 1971, 443 F.2d 854; Pleas v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 56; Summerville v. Cook, 5 Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 1196. Cf. Mims v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 375 F.2d 135.

Affirmed.

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

*137 PER CURIAM:

Jenkins appeals from the denial of federal habeas relief. The trial court held that the sole issue raised below (and the sole issue on this appeal), the sufficiency vel non of the evidence at appellant’s state trial for murder as to his sanity at the time the offense was committed, did not present grounds for federal habeas relief for denial of due process. We agree.

There was competent evidence presented at the trial to substantiate the jury verdict. An issue of the sufficiency of the evidence raised by conflicting testimony supporting a state conviction does not present a due process question. See Colbroth v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1972, 466 F.2d 1193; Young v. Alabama, 5 Cir. 1971, 443 F.2d 854; Pleas v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 56; Summerville v. Cook, 5 Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 1196. Cf. Mims v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 375 F.2d 135.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 F.2d 136, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodell-jenkins-v-louie-l-wainwright-warden-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack