Rudolph Jerome Austin v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

Fifth Circuit

Rudolph Jerome Austin v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

358 F.2d 736, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6740

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 25, 1966

Docket23007_1

StatusPublished

This text of 358 F.2d 736 (Rudolph Jerome Austin 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

Rudolph Jerome Austin v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, 358 F.2d 736, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6740 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case the appellant is a prisoner of the State of Florida, serving a life term sentence upon a conviction of rape. He sought federal habeas corpus relief on the contention that the product of an illegal search of his automobile was admitted in evidence against him, thus invalidating his conviction. The District Court accorded appellant a full evidenti-ary hearing, in which he personally appeared, testified, and was represented by counsel. After hearing testimony for both sides, the District Court found that the petitioner had consented to that search which was the subject of complaint and denied relief. The finding is supported by evidence, which the trier of the fact chose to accept.

Accordingly, the Judgment is affirmed.

The Court wishes to express its thanks to James Richard Moore, Esq., of the Jacksonville Bar for his representation of the appellant in this case without fee.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case the appellant is a prisoner of the State of Florida, serving a life term sentence upon a conviction of rape. He sought federal habeas corpus relief on the contention that the product of an illegal search of his automobile was admitted in evidence against him, thus invalidating his conviction. The District Court accorded appellant a full evidenti-ary hearing, in which he personally appeared, testified, and was represented by counsel. After hearing testimony for both sides, the District Court found that the petitioner had consented to that search which was the subject of complaint and denied relief. The finding is supported by evidence, which the trier of the fact chose to accept.

Accordingly, the Judgment is affirmed.

The Court wishes to express its thanks to James Richard Moore, Esq., of the Jacksonville Bar for his representation of the appellant in this case without fee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 F.2d 736, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudolph-jerome-austin-v-louie-l-wainwright-director-division-of-ca5-1966.