Rush O. Nichols v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent

556 F.2d 1330
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 6, 1977
Docket76-3108
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 556 F.2d 1330 (Rush O. Nichols v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent) 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
Rush O. Nichols v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent, 556 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir. 1977).

Opinion

GEE, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner was convicted in 1973 in Texas state court of robbery by assault 1 *1331 and was sentenced to life imprisonment under the Texas habitual offender statute. 2 He here alleges that the state improperly relied on a 1965 Oklahoma conviction to enhance his sentence for three reasons: (1) he was denied counsel on appeal from that conviction; (2) Texas law prohibits the use of a capital felony such as the Oklahoma conviction to enhance a noncapital felony such as the Texas conviction; and (3) the state failed to prove that petitioner was afforded an examining trial prior to the 1965 conviction. Because federal courts do not review a state’s failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures, 3 and because the Constitution does not require a state preliminary hearing, 4 only the first contention presents a possible basis for habeas corpus relief.

But petitioner’s counsel failed to object to the admission of the Oklahoma conviction on the ground that counsel had not been provided on appeal. 5 This failure worked a waiver of the constitutional error complained of here. Wainwright v. Sykes, - U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977); Loud v. Estelle, 556 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1977). See also St. John v. Estelle, 544 F.2d 894 (5th Cir. 1977).

The district court’s order denying relief is AFFIRMED.

1

. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Nichols v. State, 511 S.W.2d 269 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974). State habeas corpus relief was denied without written opinion.

2

. Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 12.42 (1974).

3

. Willeford v. Estelle, 538 F.2d 1194 (5th Cir. 1976).

4

. Harris v. Estelle, 487 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1974).

5

. A general objection on other grounds was made and overruled.

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

Related

Vargas v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
373 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (M.D. Florida, 2005)
Rodwell v. Singletary
114 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (M.D. Florida, 2000)
Carl Roberson, AKA Robertson v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998
Hogue v. Johnson
131 F.3d 466 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
Hogue v. Scott
874 F. Supp. 1486 (N.D. Texas, 1995)
Ex Parte Potts
426 So. 2d 896 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1983)
Hill v. State
633 S.W.2d 520 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Goodwin v. Balkcom
501 F. Supp. 317 (M.D. Georgia, 1980)
Kuhn v. STATE EX REL. VAN NATTA
402 N.E.2d 38 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
556 F.2d 1330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rush-o-nichols-v-w-j-estelle-jr-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1977.