Roosevelt Hopkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

Fifth Circuit

Roosevelt Hopkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

458 F.2d 393, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10242

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1972

Docket71-3104

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 458 F.2d 393 (Roosevelt Hopkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida) 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

Roosevelt Hopkins v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, 458 F.2d 393, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10242 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Hopkins appeals from an order of the district court denying his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Appellant was convicted upon trial by jury in the Dade County, Florida Criminal Court of Record of the offenses of robbery and attempted murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Hopkins v. State, Fla.App., 192 So.2d 8 (1966), cert. denied, Fla., 200 So.2d 812 (1967) . After exhausting state remedies, appellant filed his habeas petition in the court below alleging that (1) the Government knowingly used perjured testimony concerning identification; (2) he was entitled to have counsel present at his lineup; (3) identification testimony of the victim was insufficient; and (4) the trial court failed to direct an acquittal.

Rather than alleging facts in support of his assertions of perjury and insufficient identification, appellant set *394 forth excerpts of trial testimony, all of which refer to his being identified by eyewitnesses at the time of the offense and at the lineup. These excerpts are relevant only to the sufficiency of the evidence from which the jury determined appellant’s guilt. Sufficiency of evidence is not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief. Pleas v. Wainwright, 5th Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 56; Summerville v. Cook, 5th Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 1196; Ful-ford v. Dutton, 5th Cir. 1967, 380 F.2d 16. As to the allegation that he was denied counsel at the lineup, appellant was tried and convicted before the Supreme Court decided United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149. Wade has been held not to be retroactively applied. Stovall v. Denno, 1967, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199; Harris v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 116. Finally, the contention that the court erred in not directing an acquittal is patently without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Hopkins appeals from an order of the district court denying his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Appellant was convicted upon trial by jury in the Dade County, Florida Criminal Court of Record of the offenses of robbery and attempted murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Hopkins v. State, Fla.App., 192 So.2d 8 (1966), cert. denied, Fla., 200 So.2d 812 (1967) . After exhausting state remedies, appellant filed his habeas petition in the court below alleging that (1) the Government knowingly used perjured testimony concerning identification; (2) he was entitled to have counsel present at his lineup; (3) identification testimony of the victim was insufficient; and (4) the trial court failed to direct an acquittal.

Rather than alleging facts in support of his assertions of perjury and insufficient identification, appellant set *394 forth excerpts of trial testimony, all of which refer to his being identified by eyewitnesses at the time of the offense and at the lineup. These excerpts are relevant only to the sufficiency of the evidence from which the jury determined appellant’s guilt. Sufficiency of evidence is not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief. Pleas v. Wainwright, 5th Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 56; Summerville v. Cook, 5th Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 1196; Ful-ford v. Dutton, 5th Cir. 1967, 380 F.2d 16. As to the allegation that he was denied counsel at the lineup, appellant was tried and convicted before the Supreme Court decided United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149. Wade has been held not to be retroactively applied. Stovall v. Denno, 1967, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199; Harris v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 116. Finally, the contention that the court erred in not directing an acquittal is patently without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 F.2d 393, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roosevelt-hopkins-v-louie-l-wainwright-director-division-of-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack